I have 2 points. 1. Specific strength is the correct term. 2. Strength normalized to weight is not a common term suggesting the author is not knowledgable in this field and it is actually incorrect, again suggesting a lack of knowledge of the author.
WTF is Strength normalized to weight? Specific strength is the term they are looking for, second it is normalized to mass, not weight.
Suggest to me someone with little science/engineering background "wrote" the article, and just listed off the interesting stuff they 'heard about nanotubes'
In short, he understood that science is more of an art than a science. It was really nice work.
Unless you have some sort of zen of judging thing going on this makes no sense. Science must be more Science than art, if it was more art than science one would suggest science is only partially science creating a recursive depreciation of science.
If what you meant to say was the solution was a "work of art" that makes sense.
They chose to work two jobs, they chose to have kids, and they choose not to supervise them properly. With freedom comes responsibility.
They could work less (and yes do with less money) and supervise their kids.
They could have not had kids.
My wife and I have decided that when we have kids we will have to make certain sacrifices to our personal lives and careers and standard of living to raise them properly. This is one of the tradeoffs of having kids. I know some other people who think a child is slightly more responsiblity than a puppy and that it shouldn't really impact your life too much.
The problems with terrorists is their antisocial behaviour. I'll admit the US has done some things (dumb and/or repeatedly) to piss off a lot of people.
Terrorism and war has existed for as long as society. It exists in the US, outside the US, before the US existed and will continue to exist long after the US ceases to.
Occasionally some group will blame a certain action of another group for their behaviour.
But the following excuses are just excuses and don't in themselves always justify the reaction. Their brother/daddy/government/religion/geopolitical group beat up my daddy/governmentreligion/geopolitical group.
The Devil/Bible/Koran/Cereal box/talking monkey made me do it.
They weren't listening to me, so I'll just keep making more noise until they do. As appropriate in politics as a toddlers temper tantrums.
The long term goal of the FCC (and any branch of government)should be to drive themselves out of business as much as possible, if not avoid getting involved in the first place.
One purpose of the FCC is to allocate the radio spectrum to ensure effective communication.
Allowing freedom for the widespread adoption of new technology while ensuring current systems can remain in place is a balancing act. They seem to have been doing a pretty good job so far. I doubt it will come, assume the FCC is successful and there is sufficient capacity available so that they don't need to worry about controlling the spectrum, wouldn't that be a great success story for the FCC ?
Directions given in this manner ARE dependant on execution order. However if you specify a location in another way you can let the "system" determine the best path.
For example, if you want something to move, you give it the source and destination location. Maybe I want to fly, drive, walk, sail, or bike. Depending on what is most convenient I will perform different actions in different orders, or take an entirely different path. Let me (or the compiler) decide how will allow you to function more on your task then the mechanics of my task. Of course you can further constrain me however you want, but only as much as required.
I prefer the real teachers and TAs who marked the process not the answer. If you're right, you're right, full marks. If you approach the problem in a logical manner and get it wrong you get a good/full mark because you understand the concept. If you approach it cluelessly you get a bad mark.
Of course with some problems that I magically found "trivial" I would occasionally get into an argument because I would skip the entire analysis and provide the answer.
Currently computers detract from the 'learning' experience.
Computers are good to work on, they're good to run through repetative stuff.
They also let you cheat, do things you don't understand (ie FEA).
People tend to skip the theory and get "right to work" when they have a computer. You've got to step back, think what you are going to do, then do it. Giving everyone a computer they think they'll be able to click their way through their education, which kinda defeats the point doesn't it?
Read together section 27 and 80 make it clear you can make your own copies for your own use.
As for file sharing the courts ruled that transmitting is infringing, but downloading is not.
Putting it up to share is not a passive act. At your direction the share makes a copy and distributes upon request. Automating your action does not remove your responsibilty.
If I make a car bomb and someone dies, I still get charged with murder, the automated process that actually killed the person doesn't remove my liability.
1. They assume you're a criminal and fine you in advance through the levy.
2. The law permits you to copy all the music you want without paying the copyright holder. To ensure there is still an incentive to create the government pays the copyright holder a small amount to compensate them for their work. The technical means to achieve this was a levy on blank audio media.
#1 is not possible as no crime has been committed.
Financially I'd definately be better off to print at Kinkos. However when I have 15 minutes, and I want mapquest directions to somewhere I've never been, I like my home inkjet printer.
It's the cheapest way to get a small number of printouts at home. I do go through a lot of ink cartridges (or run the cleaning program waaaayyy to often.)
I want a cheap printer for occasional use, inkjets fufil that need.
Well for one I don't think that I would run a company making it so easy to find information on a specific person.
However as an Engineer if I design (for example) a car part that is dangerous and someone gets injured, guess who gets sued and can go to jail because of it? Hint it isn't the reporter who tells everyone what I did.
You need shock value to get peoples attention. And quite honestly, if Google doesn't like how someone pointed out how easily available Google makes personal information then Google shouldn't make it so available. Crying foul because someone in the press reports what you did is BS.
This is not common knowledge, most people don't know that this type of information is available.
This example has the benefit that many don't think it is a problem. "Look he doesn't care that his own company is broadcasting this information for all to see".
Slashdot Mirror
I have 2 points.
1. Specific strength is the correct term.
2. Strength normalized to weight is not a common term suggesting the author is not knowledgable in this field and it is actually incorrect, again suggesting a lack of knowledge of the author.
Yeah give me an irrational emotional basketcase to run the company.... soooo much better.
I'd rather have some emotionless calculating weasel thank some incompetent flake watching my money.
That being said, eventually the psychopaths would just like to pass the test, it isn't like they'll have a moral objection to cheating.
I wouldn't rely on a tabloid science article for the current status of technology.
I do find it odd that you'd expect someone who doesn't know that weight and mass are different would know what 'normalized' means.
Depending on the target audience I would have said either
High specific strength or
Good strength/weight ratio
I'll stand by my initial statement that this is a junk article.
WTF is Strength normalized to weight?
Specific strength is the term they are looking for, second it is normalized to mass, not weight.
Suggest to me someone with little science/engineering background "wrote" the article, and just listed off the interesting stuff they 'heard about nanotubes'
I'm sure that is why everyone bought an XBOX rather than a PS2.
In short, he understood that science is more of an art than a science. It was really nice work.
Unless you have some sort of zen of judging thing going on this makes no sense.
Science must be more Science than art, if it was more art than science one would suggest science is only partially science creating a recursive depreciation of science.
If what you meant to say was the solution was a "work of art" that makes sense.
I do blame the parents, and I'll tell you why.
They chose to work two jobs, they chose to have kids, and they choose not to supervise them properly. With freedom comes responsibility.
They could work less (and yes do with less money) and supervise their kids.
They could have not had kids.
My wife and I have decided that when we have kids we will have to make certain sacrifices to our personal lives and careers and standard of living to raise them properly. This is one of the tradeoffs of having kids.
I know some other people who think a child is slightly more responsiblity than a puppy and that it shouldn't really impact your life too much.
But they'll end up drinking nyquil and driving their monster SUV into a crowd of people and be just fine themselves.
The problems with terrorists is their antisocial behaviour. I'll admit the US has done some things (dumb and/or repeatedly) to piss off a lot of people.
Terrorism and war has existed for as long as society. It exists in the US, outside the US, before the US existed and will continue to exist long after the US ceases to.
Occasionally some group will blame a certain action of another group for their behaviour.
But the following excuses are just excuses and don't in themselves always justify the reaction.
Their brother/daddy/government/religion/geopolitical group beat up my daddy/governmentreligion/geopolitical group.
The Devil/Bible/Koran/Cereal box/talking monkey made me do it.
They weren't listening to me, so I'll just keep making more noise until they do. As appropriate in politics as a toddlers temper tantrums.
The long term goal of the FCC (and any branch of government)should be to drive themselves out of business as much as possible, if not avoid getting involved in the first place.
One purpose of the FCC is to allocate the radio spectrum to ensure effective communication.
Allowing freedom for the widespread adoption of new technology while ensuring current systems can remain in place is a balancing act.
They seem to have been doing a pretty good job so far. I doubt it will come, assume the FCC is successful and there is sufficient capacity available so that they don't need to worry about controlling the spectrum, wouldn't that be a great success story for the FCC ?
We have fearmongering GPL v3 posts every few weeks.
I'm starting to think there is no GPLv3.
Someone post a draft, and lets have a real discussion. Until then it will just be more arguing over nothing.
Directions given in this manner ARE dependant on execution order.
However if you specify a location in another way you can let the "system" determine the best path.
For example, if you want something to move, you give it the source and destination location.
Maybe I want to fly, drive, walk, sail, or bike. Depending on what is most convenient I will perform different actions in different orders, or take an entirely different path. Let me (or the compiler) decide how will allow you to function more on your task then the mechanics of my task.
Of course you can further constrain me however you want, but only as much as required.
Well get your government to fix the laws.
Canadian Copyright Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39417.html
Sect 30.6
Buy the copy, use the software. Ignore the EULA.
Simple, they should just lease the book/magazine, not sell it.
If they don't transfer ownership they can require whatever they want.
I prefer the real teachers and TAs who marked the process not the answer.
If you're right, you're right, full marks.
If you approach the problem in a logical manner and get it wrong you get a good/full mark because you understand the concept.
If you approach it cluelessly you get a bad mark.
Of course with some problems that I magically found "trivial" I would occasionally get into an argument because I would skip the entire analysis and provide the answer.
Currently computers detract from the 'learning' experience.
Computers are good to work on, they're good to run through repetative stuff.
They also let you cheat, do things you don't understand (ie FEA).
People tend to skip the theory and get "right to work" when they have a computer. You've got to step back, think what you are going to do, then do it. Giving everyone a computer they think they'll be able to click their way through their education, which kinda defeats the point doesn't it?
Read together section 27 and 80 make it clear you can make your own copies for your own use.
As for file sharing the courts ruled that transmitting is infringing, but downloading is not.
Putting it up to share is not a passive act.
At your direction the share makes a copy and distributes upon request. Automating your action does not remove your responsibilty.
If I make a car bomb and someone dies, I still get charged with murder, the automated process that actually killed the person doesn't remove my liability.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/
Section 80.
Looks pretty clear cut to me.
When the law clearly states what is not infringement there is a question.
What bill is making this unclear? I'll write my MP again.
There are 2 perspectives.
1. They assume you're a criminal and fine you in advance through the levy.
2. The law permits you to copy all the music you want without paying the copyright holder. To ensure there is still an incentive to create the government pays the copyright holder a small amount to compensate them for their work. The technical means to achieve this was a levy on blank audio media.
#1 is not possible as no crime has been committed.
Financially I'd definately be better off to print at Kinkos.
However when I have 15 minutes, and I want mapquest directions to somewhere I've never been, I like my home inkjet printer.
It's the cheapest way to get a small number of printouts at home. I do go through a lot of ink cartridges (or run the cleaning program waaaayyy to often.)
I want a cheap printer for occasional use, inkjets fufil that need.
I print out about 50 pages/yr.
I want colour.
I want a printer at home.
At $1/page, it's still cheaper to buy an inkjet then a laser printer.
Well for one I don't think that I would run a company making it so easy to find information on a specific person.
However as an Engineer if I design (for example) a car part that is dangerous and someone gets injured, guess who gets sued and can go to jail because of it? Hint it isn't the reporter who tells everyone what I did.
You need shock value to get peoples attention.
And quite honestly, if Google doesn't like how someone pointed out how easily available Google makes personal information then Google shouldn't make it so available. Crying foul because someone in the press reports what you did is BS.
Worked for me.
My goal at the end of highschool was to "work on something cool".
So I became an engineer, unfortunately only I find my work cool.
This is not common knowledge, most people don't know that this type of information is available.
This example has the benefit that many don't think it is a problem.
"Look he doesn't care that his own company is broadcasting this information for all to see".