First craft to land Man on moon who spends 1 night in haunted Moon Mansion and return alive
You didn't specify, but I presume you meant a Lunar Night. Spending roughly two weeks there is far more worth a prize than a mere eight to twelve hours.
No. Science, not being sapient, has no agenda. Certain people masquerading as scientists, do. They're the ones running and promoting "studies" designed only to prove what they want proven, rather than discover the truth.
It's just like that poo-pooing science on second hand smoke.
Considering that the anti-smoking people claim second hand smoke is more dangerous to people around the smoker than the smoke itself, their claims directly controdict the original evidence that cigarette smoke causes cancer. It was proven by a statistical study of families with two adults and one smoker, showing that the smoker had a significantly greater chance of developing certain types of cancer than the non-smoker. Of course, that type of person never lets little things like the facts get in the way of their propaganda.
What can you do in Emacs you can't do in other editors? Well, how many other editors do date conversions for you? Need to know what the Hebrew date is for tomorrow? Or in the Coptic calander? How about the Julian Date? Emacs does that. Granted, you don't have to translate things to the French Revolutionary Calander very often, but if you ever do, Emacs is there waiting to be asked.
It could probably be changed in a generation or two, but for now, it's like that.
The Soviets spent seventy years trying to change that and didn't succeed. I'm told that the more socialistic kibutzim in Israel survive only because of new adults joining them. When the children grow up they always leave. None of them want to spend the rest of their lives in that type of society. In general, It Just Doesn't Work.
...the Billboard charts do accurately reflect what people are listening to.
Replace "listening to" with "buying" and you have it right. People might want to hear an older song on the radio instead of newer junque, but if they've allready bought the CD, it's not going to stay on the charts and it's not going to get much airplay.
No. the Coriolis effect comes from moving across the rotation in the same plane. This is moving at right angles to it, and as the beanstock is anchored to the Earth, it shares its rotation so there's no problems with this.
Or given enough money you could hang it from orbit and have it reach halfway down...
That would have some...interesting side effects. Consider:
The Center of Gravity of the satelite will continue to move in the same orbit it always had. However, as you let the tether drop, the satelite will have to move up to balance the tether's mass. Then, if the tether gets low enough that there's noticable atmospheric drag, it won't be able to remain straight up and down. I'm not sure just how much that will affect the orbit, but it will slow it down, bringing the whole thing into a lower orbit. Probably not the best idea.
Fine, the FAA insists on having approval no matter where you go if you're a US citizen or company? Just incorporate a company outside US, and let it do the dirty work. Of course, you own it, but the people doing the actual work aren't subject to the FAA in any way, shape or form.
Some are nazis, and want to block leechers from their trackers.
So, what do these nazis do to people who's client is sitting there, waiting to upload and give back the bandwidth they've used but who aren't being asked for anything? I've sometimes left my client running for hours after finishing a download and not sent back a single piece because nobody's asking for it. Does that make me a leach?
To be honest though Calculus just using limits is actually a lot easier to understand for most people...
I remember learning limits and enjoying them for their own sake. Then, we started using them to differentiate, and it got harder. Suddenly, I had the classic "aha!" moment, and it got easy again because I'd seen where we were going. I've heard that either you have that experience, or you never understand Calculus. You might be able to use it, but only as a "black box," and you'll never be any good with it.
My geometry book in High School used number 3 as its proof of the theorom. Instead of a simple diagram, it used a series of transparent overlays to show the various steps. It claimed that the oldest version of this was found in India, as just the diagram and the comment, "Behold!" Euclid's proof was also shown, but only in a condensed form, as the authors considered it too hard for beginners to understand without a lot of explanation.
I wasn't taught trig functions as black boxes. We learned right from the start that they're the ratios of the various sides. Once you understand that, it's easy to know which function to use to find which side or angle, and why. Identities were just s easy: they're just formulas that don't depend on the angle; they're right for any angle, so you can use them to simplify equations. Trig was fun, and I was good at it, but that might be because my teacher understood how to explain it instead of simply demanding rote memorization.
He gets back his bail, as that's just money he puts up to guarentee he'll show up for trial. He even gets it back if convicted, as once the trial's over, there's no need for it. In either case, however, he's out his legal fees.
A good cite, but there's another principle here: Res ipsa loquitur, or, "The act speaks for itself." Usually used in negligence cases, it refers to times when there's no way to demonstrate just who caused an accident, but the event is so outrageous that there's no other way to account for it. the Wikpedia article includes a description of the case that produced the principle if you're interested. Here, I think it might apply, because as the defendent himself admits, he bought the laptop in the street from a stranger, never tried to get her name, took her word that it wasn't stolen and completed the transaction in under a minute. It's going to be very difficult for his lawyer to come up with a believable explanation for that that doesn't include the idea that he knew it was stolen.
Actually, he doesn't even have to prove he didn't know it was stolen. All he needs to do is make the jurors doubt the claim that he knew what was going on. Here in the USofA, if a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the guilt, they are expected to vote Not Guilty. I've read the article linked to in the Parent, and he just took the woman's word that it wasn't stolen, making no effort to check. By his own admission, he didn't know her, and the transaction took only a minute or so. If I were a juror, I'd be inclined to vote Guilty as of now. It's hard to think of anything he or his lawyer can come up with that's going to raise the slightest doubt, let alone a reasonable doubt.
Guess who loses the executive politics battle if the CEO decides that IT is "out of control"?
That's not the issue we're discussing here. We're discussing ways to teach people to be responsible for their actions and not force IT to pay the price for cleaning up messes that shouldn't have happened in the first place. My suggestion implied that it was company policy that those costs be paid for from the budget of whatever department, division, project or whatever was responsible for it, instead of being paid for by IT.
It also assumed (though I didn't specify) that there'd be some objective way to decide who pays. Getting infected by a brand-new virus, before definitions are updated? IT pays. Getting infected with an old one because you opened an attachment from a total stranger? You made the mess, you pay for cleanup.
This way, not only does he suffer from his action, others will know why he is working at the "Concentration Cubicle."
I had a diffrent idea. Each project, each department, each work group has a budget. If the costs of having IT clean up a mess that shouldn't have happened come out of that budget, people will get more carefull, fast. If they don't, then the ones causing the loss of funds will get marked down on their reviews, and possibly fired for their lack of cautiion and the problem goes away when they do.
Slashdot Mirror
And what the frelling frell does "shazbot" mean?
You didn't specify, but I presume you meant a Lunar Night. Spending roughly two weeks there is far more worth a prize than a mere eight to twelve hours.
Yes, but the Troll moderation just got meta-modded Unfair.
No. Science, not being sapient, has no agenda. Certain people masquerading as scientists, do. They're the ones running and promoting "studies" designed only to prove what they want proven, rather than discover the truth.
It's just like that poo-pooing science on second hand smoke.
Considering that the anti-smoking people claim second hand smoke is more dangerous to people around the smoker than the smoke itself, their claims directly controdict the original evidence that cigarette smoke causes cancer. It was proven by a statistical study of families with two adults and one smoker, showing that the smoker had a significantly greater chance of developing certain types of cancer than the non-smoker. Of course, that type of person never lets little things like the facts get in the way of their propaganda.
What can you do in Emacs you can't do in other editors? Well, how many other editors do date conversions for you? Need to know what the Hebrew date is for tomorrow? Or in the Coptic calander? How about the Julian Date? Emacs does that. Granted, you don't have to translate things to the French Revolutionary Calander very often, but if you ever do, Emacs is there waiting to be asked.
Fi on vi, I say, Emacs forever! Eight Meg And Constantly Swapping isn't a problem whe you have 256Meg.
The Soviets spent seventy years trying to change that and didn't succeed. I'm told that the more socialistic kibutzim in Israel survive only because of new adults joining them. When the children grow up they always leave. None of them want to spend the rest of their lives in that type of society. In general, It Just Doesn't Work.
Replace "listening to" with "buying" and you have it right. People might want to hear an older song on the radio instead of newer junque, but if they've allready bought the CD, it's not going to stay on the charts and it's not going to get much airplay.
It's appropriate, though. Today is Tlk Like A Pirate Day. Arrrgh!
No. the Coriolis effect comes from moving across the rotation in the same plane. This is moving at right angles to it, and as the beanstock is anchored to the Earth, it shares its rotation so there's no problems with this.
There will be drag. That can't be avoided. However, I don't know how much, or if it's enough to be important.
That would have some...interesting side effects. Consider:
The Center of Gravity of the satelite will continue to move in the same orbit it always had. However, as you let the tether drop, the satelite will have to move up to balance the tether's mass. Then, if the tether gets low enough that there's noticable atmospheric drag, it won't be able to remain straight up and down. I'm not sure just how much that will affect the orbit, but it will slow it down, bringing the whole thing into a lower orbit. Probably not the best idea.
You actually need two: Up and Down.
Fine, the FAA insists on having approval no matter where you go if you're a US citizen or company? Just incorporate a company outside US, and let it do the dirty work. Of course, you own it, but the people doing the actual work aren't subject to the FAA in any way, shape or form.
It fails horribly in practice, and therefore is a bad theory.
So, what do these nazis do to people who's client is sitting there, waiting to upload and give back the bandwidth they've used but who aren't being asked for anything? I've sometimes left my client running for hours after finishing a download and not sent back a single piece because nobody's asking for it. Does that make me a leach?
I remember learning limits and enjoying them for their own sake. Then, we started using them to differentiate, and it got harder. Suddenly, I had the classic "aha!" moment, and it got easy again because I'd seen where we were going. I've heard that either you have that experience, or you never understand Calculus. You might be able to use it, but only as a "black box," and you'll never be any good with it.
My geometry book in High School used number 3 as its proof of the theorom. Instead of a simple diagram, it used a series of transparent overlays to show the various steps. It claimed that the oldest version of this was found in India, as just the diagram and the comment, "Behold!" Euclid's proof was also shown, but only in a condensed form, as the authors considered it too hard for beginners to understand without a lot of explanation.
I wasn't taught trig functions as black boxes. We learned right from the start that they're the ratios of the various sides. Once you understand that, it's easy to know which function to use to find which side or angle, and why. Identities were just s easy: they're just formulas that don't depend on the angle; they're right for any angle, so you can use them to simplify equations. Trig was fun, and I was good at it, but that might be because my teacher understood how to explain it instead of simply demanding rote memorization.
He gets back his bail, as that's just money he puts up to guarentee he'll show up for trial. He even gets it back if convicted, as once the trial's over, there's no need for it. In either case, however, he's out his legal fees.
A good cite, but there's another principle here: Res ipsa loquitur, or, "The act speaks for itself." Usually used in negligence cases, it refers to times when there's no way to demonstrate just who caused an accident, but the event is so outrageous that there's no other way to account for it. the Wikpedia article includes a description of the case that produced the principle if you're interested. Here, I think it might apply, because as the defendent himself admits, he bought the laptop in the street from a stranger, never tried to get her name, took her word that it wasn't stolen and completed the transaction in under a minute. It's going to be very difficult for his lawyer to come up with a believable explanation for that that doesn't include the idea that he knew it was stolen.
Actually, he doesn't even have to prove he didn't know it was stolen. All he needs to do is make the jurors doubt the claim that he knew what was going on. Here in the USofA, if a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the guilt, they are expected to vote Not Guilty. I've read the article linked to in the Parent, and he just took the woman's word that it wasn't stolen, making no effort to check. By his own admission, he didn't know her, and the transaction took only a minute or so. If I were a juror, I'd be inclined to vote Guilty as of now. It's hard to think of anything he or his lawyer can come up with that's going to raise the slightest doubt, let alone a reasonable doubt.
That's not the issue we're discussing here. We're discussing ways to teach people to be responsible for their actions and not force IT to pay the price for cleaning up messes that shouldn't have happened in the first place. My suggestion implied that it was company policy that those costs be paid for from the budget of whatever department, division, project or whatever was responsible for it, instead of being paid for by IT.
It also assumed (though I didn't specify) that there'd be some objective way to decide who pays. Getting infected by a brand-new virus, before definitions are updated? IT pays. Getting infected with an old one because you opened an attachment from a total stranger? You made the mess, you pay for cleanup.
I had a diffrent idea. Each project, each department, each work group has a budget. If the costs of having IT clean up a mess that shouldn't have happened come out of that budget, people will get more carefull, fast. If they don't, then the ones causing the loss of funds will get marked down on their reviews, and possibly fired for their lack of cautiion and the problem goes away when they do.
What makes you think I'm a Limey? I'm not; I live in Sunny California.