It is a quite interesting thing being able to "re-watch" a Supernova from the beginning because the light has multiple paths towards Earth so we got a "warning" when it will happen.
I though we were able to notice supernovas a short time in advance of when they occurred visually because neutrinos from the explosion make it out of the star well in advance of the other stuff. (So we see a few neutrinos and can tell the supernova is about to be visible).
Can someone confirm or deny? It's been a long time since I took astrophysics.
That might be unsportsmanlike, but not unfair. If someone chose to do something they're inherently bad at they should expect to lose to someone who chose to do something they are inherently good at -- that's only fair. Pretending everyone is identical doesn't do them justice.
Pretending everyone is identical is *exactly* what most sports do, because they don't adjust the rules based on the starting characteristics of a team, for example.
I'll admit that fairness is, to some degree, an arbitrary concept and it's almost infinitely debatable what it means to be "fair." I think it's unfair to put two people in a boxing ring when one of them has a significant advantage that has nothing to do with his skill and then to herald the "winner" for being "better" when he just happens to have an advantage that he never worked for.
Victories should be earned. A victory based on having bigger feet isn't an earned victory.
and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong)
What Lance Armstrong did was wrong, but it had nothing to do with drugs. Please do not spread lies. Or if something else came up involving Lance Armstrong and drugs, then cite it.
It had nothing to do with drugs if you are the biggest Lance Armstrong supporter in the world, maybe. In the real world, if it quacks like a duck, it probably is one.
The olympics are the single most boring events out there. This is just slightly more interesting.
This. Most Olympic sports don't have much strategy to them. A lot of them are in part a question of who has the best unfair evolutionary advantage (how big are your feet, Australian Swimmer), in part a question of how much money you have for your coach (hi, rich kids!), in part a question of how much your country is willing to lie (Weren't the Chinese Gymnasts too young to compete last time, or something like that?), and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong). And don't forget the politics where judges select people not based on their ability or grace, but based on their personal resentment of the politics symbolized by the person being judged (hello, figure skating).
Some people enjoy it, but lets not pretend its some pinnacle of human accomplishment, ideal competition, or... interesting television.
This is a classic example of American double-standards. It's OK to undermine and abuse non-Americans' civil rights just as long as you don't do it to Americans. Well, the rest of the world hears this from American politicians, the military, and pundits. What kind of an impression do you think this makes? Do you think you're winning hearts and minds in the so called "War on Terror"?
This is how spying works in real life. You spy on people outside your borders. You have legal spies (attaches and embassy personell) and illegal spies (covert operatives) and signals intelligence and analysts. Sometimes you get caught and maybe you look bad. But you have a selected set of people whom you treat differently because you have a different duty to them. You have a duty to protect their liberties and not look at them too closely unless there's a real problem. Just like you have a selected set of people whom you look at REALLY closely, because they're the biggest or most likely threats to your people.
Could the roads handle nearly as much traffic if you rigorously followed the laws? If you had every car in America allow enough space in front of them to be space, you would have to drop at least 75% of the cars from every major highway in every metropolitan area in the country. The DC Beltway, the New England Thruway, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles...
The correct answer, of course, is to always prioritize the safety of the driver.
Not always, no.
For example, suppose you can hit a row of a lamp-post or a crowd at, say, 40 MPH. Now say the driver will *probably* survive either but it is safer for him to hit the crowd because all those human bodies he squishes will help slow the car down before he stops.
What part of "the jury held" don't you understand? All you're saying is the jury is wrong. They may be wrong, but they're the jury. And they held that. What's more, you don't actually know whether they are wrong, because you *didn't listen to the evidence.* The jury did.
So these subscribers were suspect, and Cox didn't kill their connections after a private organisation told them to, so they're on the hook for the suspected cases?
The whole situation seems suspect in of itself.
No.
The jury held that BMG had *proved* the users violated copyright. (By a preponderance of the evidence, because it is a civil case--you don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.)
The jury also held that Cox had contributed the infringement, probably by "materially contributing" to the infringement. I didn't see the jury instructions so I'm not sure offhand. It's probably a bad extension of the Grokster case that should get overturned on appeal, although it might or might not. If it isn't, it turns out that Congress gets a LOT of money from communications providers, and they may well change the law.
So if it's semi-private, it probably means regular people won't be able to mine, which means that corrupted banks will try to take over
No, that is not what this is about. This is not a takeover of bitcoin by the banks. This is about using a separate semi-private blockchain to verify non-bitcoin transactions. Currently, financial transactions, such as stock or bond sales, can take several days to clear, and involve significant transaction costs. By using a blockchain, these transactions could be verified in seconds, and at lower cost.
Financial transactions don't take several days to clear because they're hard to verify. They take several days to clear because (1) it slows down day trading, especially by people without large capital reserves, and (2) for some transactions, because it lets banks hold onto your money and make interest off them in the meantime. Put another way, they're slow because somebody prefers it that way.
There is a plugin that unload tabs by default and reloads them when you click on them again. It makes a huge difference if you run firefox for extended periods of time.
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
This. They are causing massive harm to individuals and society in several ways: careerwise (since social media is now checked by employers), by reducing social mobility (the same way), and in terms of chilling free speech. All so that they can sell your identity to advertisers, intelligence agencies, and data mining firms.
A whole bunch of crap gets stuck into the omnibus bill. It gives them cover on some things and in other ways represents a compromise between the parties. Both parties wanted to pass CISA despite it fucking the American people (i.e. letting businesses conduct mass surveillance and just happening to turn that over the government to be used for any purpose government wants without liability and I believe with no time limit for data retention).
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some people are locked into seeing everything as a function of class, leaving out about 95% of human existence.
And... Newsweek is still around?
Not only that, they charge for their services. Almost as if they were only making a life bettered by Newsweek possible for the people rich enough to spend money on it.
Intuitively, this phenomena as described has the feel of what one thinks of given the word 'resonance'. Perhaps 'pseudo-resonance' would be a good term to apply.
It does sound a lot like how most people would think of resonance. Although actually a bit more like a really bad relationship. Forces kept trying to make it work, but each time got a teensy bit worse and had even more baggage, until suddenly it turned into a youtube video.
According to this article, when the water leaves the treatment plant, it is lead-free (within an acceptable margin of error). The problem comes from old (ie, still being built in the 1980s) pipes that used lead solder to connect the copper. The older pipes are around the city and inside homes, and will take 15 years to replace.
The water from the river has higher levels of chloride, and chloride is corrosive to iron, which caused the lead to leach off into the water.
Anyone who thinks in-home pipes will be replaced in 15 years is being optimistic to the point of the ridiculous. They will be replaced when they break (because very few people know how to work with lead any more), but if they're behind a wall nobody will replace them until the wall has to be opened. And even then, they often won't replace more than they need that day because plumbing is so damn expensive.
I worked in a water testing lab many years ago. This lead is almost certainly coming from lead pipes and solder because the pH of the water is too low. Raising the pH to 7.5-8.5 would minimise plumbosolvency and combining that with phosphate dosing would practically eliminate it.
I don't think it's terribly uncommon to have lead supply pipes under the street, at least in older communities. Even fairly wealthy ones. At least, I've heard town plumbers in the suburbs around NYC talking about it.
That's funny. perhaps they will add a bill to outlaw being a criminal, too.
No, it's actually bullshit. Meaningless campaign posturing. Their aides or supporters then mention it to media or in publications as if it were meaningful.
These are senators introducing a bill that everyone knows will be referred to a subcommittee where it will die. To top it off, they're Senators from the minority party so they *know* they have no chance of even getting the bill seriously on the agenda, much less of anything remotely resembling passage.
Which means they're spending taxpayer dollars on political posturing and time campaigning.
Time they could spend on actually trying to fix some area in government where everyone agrees something is stupid. It turns out there are a lot of these.
I don't see why they would need this.. if the rates you get aren't competitive... why even do it... move on and do something else... it's not like uber is the only option in seatle...
It's a fight about who gets to abuse whom. Ideally workers have enough bargaining power to prevent too much abuse from employers while employers have enough bargaining power to remain competitive and profitable while getting the job done they need done. The result is then that the employer continues to provide the service and profits, while the employees continue to provide their service and profit.
The problem is when either side gets too much power, the other side will get abused. For example, the UPS guy who throws packages all the time and can't be removed, the teacher who is totally incompetent but can't be fired, the teacher who can't drill a hole in his own desk or install a bookshelf in his office without having a union go apeshit all over his school. For example, the employer who will fire you if take a holiday, who provides only the salary for an IC and no benefits when you're clearly an employee, or who promises retirement at thirty years and then makes up a reason to fire you at twenty-nine years eleven months.
Guilds can be great, but can also close ranks around people who shouldn't be protected or prevent others from competing. Employers can be great, but can also do really evil things in the name of shareholders.
In Pennsylvania, the couple can "self-solemnize," meaning they don't necessarily need to have an officiant from either (1) a church or (2) the state. While this stems from Quaker roots, it seems like a good solution to the issue where governments requires you to have a religious officiant if you do not have the state solemnize the ceremony.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a quite interesting thing being able to "re-watch" a Supernova from the beginning because the light has multiple paths towards Earth so we got a "warning" when it will happen.
I though we were able to notice supernovas a short time in advance of when they occurred visually because neutrinos from the explosion make it out of the star well in advance of the other stuff. (So we see a few neutrinos and can tell the supernova is about to be visible).
Can someone confirm or deny? It's been a long time since I took astrophysics.
That might be unsportsmanlike, but not unfair. If someone chose to do something they're inherently bad at they should expect to lose to someone who chose to do something they are inherently good at -- that's only fair. Pretending everyone is identical doesn't do them justice.
Pretending everyone is identical is *exactly* what most sports do, because they don't adjust the rules based on the starting characteristics of a team, for example.
I'll admit that fairness is, to some degree, an arbitrary concept and it's almost infinitely debatable what it means to be "fair." I think it's unfair to put two people in a boxing ring when one of them has a significant advantage that has nothing to do with his skill and then to herald the "winner" for being "better" when he just happens to have an advantage that he never worked for.
Victories should be earned. A victory based on having bigger feet isn't an earned victory.
and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong)
What Lance Armstrong did was wrong, but it had nothing to do with drugs. Please do not spread lies. Or if something else came up involving Lance Armstrong and drugs, then cite it.
It had nothing to do with drugs if you are the biggest Lance Armstrong supporter in the world, maybe. In the real world, if it quacks like a duck, it probably is one.
See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
best unfair evolutionary advantage
How is evolutionary advantage unfair?
Seriously?
It is unfair because it is an advantage that a person receives without effort, resulting in a biased starting point as compared to other competitors.
Consider whether it is fair to have a basketball team of 5'4" players play against a team of 7'4" players. Both receive the same amount of practice.
The olympics are the single most boring events out there. This is just slightly more interesting.
This. Most Olympic sports don't have much strategy to them. A lot of them are in part a question of who has the best unfair evolutionary advantage (how big are your feet, Australian Swimmer), in part a question of how much money you have for your coach (hi, rich kids!), in part a question of how much your country is willing to lie (Weren't the Chinese Gymnasts too young to compete last time, or something like that?), and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong). And don't forget the politics where judges select people not based on their ability or grace, but based on their personal resentment of the politics symbolized by the person being judged (hello, figure skating).
Some people enjoy it, but lets not pretend its some pinnacle of human accomplishment, ideal competition, or... interesting television.
What is wrong with bags with wheels?
Lawyers.
Bags with wheels in a professional context usually means lawyers going to a mediation, arbitration, or trial.
This is a classic example of American double-standards. It's OK to undermine and abuse non-Americans' civil rights just as long as you don't do it to Americans. Well, the rest of the world hears this from American politicians, the military, and pundits. What kind of an impression do you think this makes? Do you think you're winning hearts and minds in the so called "War on Terror"?
This is how spying works in real life. You spy on people outside your borders. You have legal spies (attaches and embassy personell) and illegal spies (covert operatives) and signals intelligence and analysts. Sometimes you get caught and maybe you look bad. But you have a selected set of people whom you treat differently because you have a different duty to them. You have a duty to protect their liberties and not look at them too closely unless there's a real problem. Just like you have a selected set of people whom you look at REALLY closely, because they're the biggest or most likely threats to your people.
The driving algorithm for NYC if it followed that of people would be pretty easy.
1. Is there (almost) room for your car somewhere in front of you that is (mostly) on the road?
2. If yes, drive there!
It's not about lanes. It's about negative space.
Could the roads handle nearly as much traffic if you rigorously followed the laws? If you had every car in America allow enough space in front of them to be space, you would have to drop at least 75% of the cars from every major highway in every metropolitan area in the country. The DC Beltway, the New England Thruway, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles...
The correct answer, of course, is to always prioritize the safety of the driver.
Not always, no.
For example, suppose you can hit a row of a lamp-post or a crowd at, say, 40 MPH. Now say the driver will *probably* survive either but it is safer for him to hit the crowd because all those human bodies he squishes will help slow the car down before he stops.
A responsible driver hits the lamp-post.
What part of "the jury held" don't you understand? All you're saying is the jury is wrong. They may be wrong, but they're the jury. And they held that. What's more, you don't actually know whether they are wrong, because you *didn't listen to the evidence.* The jury did.
So these subscribers were suspect, and Cox didn't kill their connections after a private organisation told them to, so they're on the hook for the suspected cases?
The whole situation seems suspect in of itself.
No.
The jury held that BMG had *proved* the users violated copyright. (By a preponderance of the evidence, because it is a civil case--you don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.)
The jury also held that Cox had contributed the infringement, probably by "materially contributing" to the infringement. I didn't see the jury instructions so I'm not sure offhand. It's probably a bad extension of the Grokster case that should get overturned on appeal, although it might or might not. If it isn't, it turns out that Congress gets a LOT of money from communications providers, and they may well change the law.
So if it's semi-private, it probably means regular people won't be able to mine, which means that corrupted banks will try to take over
No, that is not what this is about. This is not a takeover of bitcoin by the banks. This is about using a separate semi-private blockchain to verify non-bitcoin transactions. Currently, financial transactions, such as stock or bond sales, can take several days to clear, and involve significant transaction costs. By using a blockchain, these transactions could be verified in seconds, and at lower cost.
Financial transactions don't take several days to clear because they're hard to verify. They take several days to clear because (1) it slows down day trading, especially by people without large capital reserves, and (2) for some transactions, because it lets banks hold onto your money and make interest off them in the meantime. Put another way, they're slow because somebody prefers it that way.
There is a plugin that unload tabs by default and reloads them when you click on them again. It makes a huge difference if you run firefox for extended periods of time.
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
This. They are causing massive harm to individuals and society in several ways: careerwise (since social media is now checked by employers), by reducing social mobility (the same way), and in terms of chilling free speech. All so that they can sell your identity to advertisers, intelligence agencies, and data mining firms.
A whole bunch of crap gets stuck into the omnibus bill. It gives them cover on some things and in other ways represents a compromise between the parties. Both parties wanted to pass CISA despite it fucking the American people (i.e. letting businesses conduct mass surveillance and just happening to turn that over the government to be used for any purpose government wants without liability and I believe with no time limit for data retention).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
High time to abandon the two party system, at least in terms of Congress.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some people are locked into seeing everything as a function of class, leaving out about 95% of human existence.
And... Newsweek is still around?
Not only that, they charge for their services. Almost as if they were only making a life bettered by Newsweek possible for the people rich enough to spend money on it.
I live near the bridge, and have driven across it a few times.
It is now a large artificial reef in the water. Which it fell into in 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Intuitively, this phenomena as described has the feel of what one thinks of given the word 'resonance'. Perhaps 'pseudo-resonance' would be a good term to apply.
It does sound a lot like how most people would think of resonance. Although actually a bit more like a really bad relationship. Forces kept trying to make it work, but each time got a teensy bit worse and had even more baggage, until suddenly it turned into a youtube video.
Same problem every other 64bit browser has that uses plugin made under designs from 20 years ago
But with 64 bits, Firefox will finally be able to address all the memory it uses!
According to this article, when the water leaves the treatment plant, it is lead-free (within an acceptable margin of error). The problem comes from old (ie, still being built in the 1980s) pipes that used lead solder to connect the copper. The older pipes are around the city and inside homes, and will take 15 years to replace.
The water from the river has higher levels of chloride, and chloride is corrosive to iron, which caused the lead to leach off into the water.
Anyone who thinks in-home pipes will be replaced in 15 years is being optimistic to the point of the ridiculous. They will be replaced when they break (because very few people know how to work with lead any more), but if they're behind a wall nobody will replace them until the wall has to be opened. And even then, they often won't replace more than they need that day because plumbing is so damn expensive.
I worked in a water testing lab many years ago. This lead is almost certainly coming from lead pipes and solder because the pH of the water is too low. Raising the pH to 7.5-8.5 would minimise plumbosolvency and combining that with phosphate dosing would practically eliminate it.
I don't think it's terribly uncommon to have lead supply pipes under the street, at least in older communities. Even fairly wealthy ones. At least, I've heard town plumbers in the suburbs around NYC talking about it.
That's funny. perhaps they will add a bill to outlaw being a criminal, too.
No, it's actually bullshit. Meaningless campaign posturing. Their aides or supporters then mention it to media or in publications as if it were meaningful.
These are senators introducing a bill that everyone knows will be referred to a subcommittee where it will die. To top it off, they're Senators from the minority party so they *know* they have no chance of even getting the bill seriously on the agenda, much less of anything remotely resembling passage.
Which means they're spending taxpayer dollars on political posturing and time campaigning.
Time they could spend on actually trying to fix some area in government where everyone agrees something is stupid. It turns out there are a lot of these.
I don't see why they would need this.. if the rates you get aren't competitive... why even do it... move on and do something else... it's not like uber is the only option in seatle...
It's a fight about who gets to abuse whom. Ideally workers have enough bargaining power to prevent too much abuse from employers while employers have enough bargaining power to remain competitive and profitable while getting the job done they need done. The result is then that the employer continues to provide the service and profits, while the employees continue to provide their service and profit.
The problem is when either side gets too much power, the other side will get abused. For example, the UPS guy who throws packages all the time and can't be removed, the teacher who is totally incompetent but can't be fired, the teacher who can't drill a hole in his own desk or install a bookshelf in his office without having a union go apeshit all over his school. For example, the employer who will fire you if take a holiday, who provides only the salary for an IC and no benefits when you're clearly an employee, or who promises retirement at thirty years and then makes up a reason to fire you at twenty-nine years eleven months.
Guilds can be great, but can also close ranks around people who shouldn't be protected or prevent others from competing. Employers can be great, but can also do really evil things in the name of shareholders.
In Pennsylvania, the couple can "self-solemnize," meaning they don't necessarily need to have an officiant from either (1) a church or (2) the state. While this stems from Quaker roots, it seems like a good solution to the issue where governments requires you to have a religious officiant if you do not have the state solemnize the ceremony.