I respectfully disagree; the most hazardous chemical is the nickel. From a longevity standpoint, the KOH will be neutralized relatively quickly, while the nickel atoms will be around in some form or another for eternity.
From a hazard standpoint, see the EPA's page on nickel. As metals go, it's not amazingly toxic, but it's not benign, either -- note that the RfD is 0.02mg/kg.
The Panasonic page was interesting; I'm not sure how they got the batteries classified as "safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream", but it probably wasn't on the merits.
Ya know, I don't think your "-1 Flamebait" was merited. But I also think you're dead wrong.
I teach the next generation -- math and science, no less. I teach the future designers of computer chips and future researchers of drug absorption in mice. A few of you know how things work and are eager to build great new things that we don't understand. I applaud you.
The rest of you are content to be half-asleep and get through school by memorizing equations and pushing buttons on the plastic brain on your desk. For you, my job is to wake you up and convince you that you *actually need to learn how things work.* You just do, because you never know when you might have to improvise with a tool, or repair it, or use it to approximate another tool.
I will continue to tell you this, not because I have some deep-seated antipathy and secret envy of your accomplishments -- but because I want you to succeed and do *more* and *better* things than you are already doing.
I tried to do some research about Maryland criminal law. I went to the www.maryland.gov site and eventually landed here. Even with Java enabled and the latest run-time environment installed, I got the message "Java must be enabled to use this site" when attempting to view it with FF. By contrast, IE6 shows it just fine.
If you're talking about this article, I would agree with you about its bias.
However, so do the Wiki editors. Notice that the article has a big red stop sign at the top, along with the message "The neutrality of this article is in dispute."
That is a prime example of the self-policing nature of the Wikipedia -- it's slow and imperfect, but it's not too bad. Even controversial topics usually provide useful external links.
Yes, he have had worse, and we get them through a process which approximates representative democracy.
If you want bad presidents, Google for the accomplishments of Presidents Tyler, who later became a member of the Confederacy, and Buchanan, whose policies accelerated the U.S. towards civil war. If you want examples of *real* and *catastrophic* indifference to civil rights, go look at the policy of President Jackson towards native Americans. Google for Indian Removal and Worcestor v. Georgia.
Bush is not my favorite president, but he is a far cry from the worst. Every crime that he or his administration has been accused of -- faking evidence to start a war, restricting civil liberties, reckless spending, giving jobs to political connections, etc. -- has been accomplished in a much more dramatic way by presidents who came before him (McKinley, Roosevelt, Roosevelt again, and Grant, respectively).
The best illustration of the value of the Wikipedia is the Hurricane Katrina article. Within 48 hours of the event, it was the best single source of facts about the storm on the 'Net, and remains so to this day.
The point is that WP does a fantastic job with recent, non-controversial topics. Older research is best found in textbooks, while controversial topics usually require multiple sources -- of which WP could be one.
Right. That's because you find the notion of "angle" to be intuitive, for whatever reason -- perhaps because you were routinely exposed to it every year since the second grade or so. The point of the chapter was that "angle" turns out to be a more complicated idea than "spread." So, presumably, a group of people learning trig from his point of view would have a clearer, cleaner picture of what's going on.
I don't know whether he's right about that. The only way to truly test it would be to subject control groups of elementary students to both ideas and see which group became more effective problem-solvers. Which experiment would, of course, be sadistic but typical for the education industry (speaking as a teacher of math).
The only odd thing about angles that comes to mind for me is the "hiccup" in the Arg(x,y) = Arctan(y/x) function, which is undefined (or requires special redefinition) at x = 0. I've never found that to be a huge conceptual hurdle -- but then again, I've been using angles since the second grade...
What I do know is that his re-packaging of trig seems interesting from a computational point of view. I'm eager to play with it and see if it yields any payoffs with respect to computer algorithms.
Certainly, it's the first new way to look at trig in a long while. Kudos to him.
1) "Having both" can mean something as simple as getting a CS degree and having a junior-year or junior summer internship in your field of interest.
Virginia Tech does this, and their grads are quite well-placed in the job market.
2) Besides, why should CS degrees be undesirable? All the stories these days are about CS departments losingenrollment.
Seems like a good time to "buy in."
3) The money isn't in coding...it's in management. You are *far* more likely to land a management position with a degree. Granted, the profit motive isn't the only consideration, but still...
P(Vi) = Probability of being pwned by single vulnerability Vi = (chance of vulnerability being exploited)*(chance of user replicating vulnerability conditions).
Probability of being pwned by multiple vulnerabilities = 1 - PROD over all vulnerabilities(1 - P(Vi)).
chance of being pwned = SUM over vulnerabilities of (chance of vulnerability being exploited)*(chance of user encountering exploit).
You can't measure security on number of vulnerabilities alone, because many of them will either affect a small number of users or be encountered in rare conditions.
That said, Firefox still beats IE hands-down because... IE is used by about 10 x the user base, has a larger number of vulnerabilities, and has vulnerabilities that affect common situations (like those related to clicking on links).
I disagree that the ACE "did their job well." Several articles -- Google gives me this one and this one -- are pointing out that the construction of the levees directly caused wetland loss, which made New Orleans more vulnerable to big storms. So if the ACE's job was to build levees, then I guess they did good. But if their job was to protect New Orleans, I'd say they did more harm than good.
What should he have said? Can OpenOffice support an Excel spreadsheet in my Word doc (just did one tonight, in fact)? Can the spreadsheet be edited within the doc?
Just curious.
Also, I'm fascinated by the possibility of inserting VOIP into a document... just think of the prank call possibilities! ("and if you send a copy of this e-mail to all of *your* friends and they click on this link, the person on the other end of the phone will give you a million dollars...")
Y'know, I don't have a whole lot invested in the issue of gay marriage -- mostly, it's not my business -- but I think you (and Mass. Supreme Court) are playing a language game.
Prior to this decade, no one understood the word "marriage" to mean anything other than something along the lines of "a commitment of fidelty between a man and a woman." Sure, different cultures had different understandings of how *many* men and women could be involved, but the word "marriage" was never understood to mean anything like "a committed relationship between two partners," which is what the SCoM, and implicitly, your post, take it to mean.
So the jump to gay marriage *is* a redefinition of the word "marriage." Justifiable? Perhaps. But we cannot pretend that it is not a new and special right.
This is why (IMO) even states that are generally gay-friendly have been slow to jump on the gay-marriage band-wagon. They realize that it is a substantial change in the way that "marriage" is conceived of.
Well... sort of. Our entire city structure was based, AFAICT, on the presumption that we didn't want to live near each other, but we needed goods and services to make it all work. Isn't that how St. Louis, Kansas City, and Portland came into existence?
From there, the sprawl was just a reflection of our values: Give me my 5 acres away from the noise of the city!
Well, his statement is certainly ambiguous, isn't it?
This challenge is daunting because DRM technologies should not only be compatible today, but for all eternity. Otherwise, consumers will be afraid to pay for content, and will stick with CDs and DVDs, which seem painless and safe by comparison. "If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed," says Peter Lee, an executive at Disney.
So... is the desire to hide DRM driven by the need for transparent compatibility... or for the need to conceal the fact that the "purchaser" is in fact a leaser ("lessor")?
It's most likely both. When people actually realize that they don't own what they've bought, they tend to try to find ways to claim ownership. Hence, DeCSS.
Right. That raises the interesting question: why is it more in Blu-Ray's financial interest to pander to the music/movie producers, than it is for them to create products for their customers?
I see... you're concerned that "genetically distinct" might not cover twins.
Two points:
Twins are certainly genetically distinct from the rest of the population... so the only question is whether they would count as two humans or one.
But, they are also clearly two separate organisms; hence, two humans would be the proper counting. A similar enumeration would occur for clones.
The tricky case is Siamese twins: how many organisms do we have? The practical question there is whether it might be morally right to separate the twins if doing so would certainly kill one. I would argue that the Siamese twins are substantially distinct organisms, and that deciding that case would then depend on the necessity of separation in order to save the life of the other.
Slashdot Mirror
...you use FF 1.0.7 to read the Slashdot article about the release of FF 1.0.7. Sheesh.
Arkansas. The nose, however, would go in Tennessee in the stomach of the ex-wife's dog.
From a hazard standpoint, see the EPA's page on nickel. As metals go, it's not amazingly toxic, but it's not benign, either -- note that the RfD is 0.02mg/kg.
The Panasonic page was interesting; I'm not sure how they got the batteries classified as "safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream", but it probably wasn't on the merits.
My wife the pediatrician calls them "Donorcycles".
What language is that?! Obviously one that allows you to write a function that never returns a value ... or one that uses call-by-reference.
I teach the next generation -- math and science, no less. I teach the future designers of computer chips and future researchers of drug absorption in mice. A few of you know how things work and are eager to build great new things that we don't understand. I applaud you.
The rest of you are content to be half-asleep and get through school by memorizing equations and pushing buttons on the plastic brain on your desk. For you, my job is to wake you up and convince you that you *actually need to learn how things work.* You just do, because you never know when you might have to improvise with a tool, or repair it, or use it to approximate another tool.
I will continue to tell you this, not because I have some deep-seated antipathy and secret envy of your accomplishments -- but because I want you to succeed and do *more* and *better* things than you are already doing.
And pay for my Social Security.
/rant.
Yep, 1.0.7 works fine.
FF 1.0. That may be the problem. I'll pursue it, thx. Regards, Jeff Cagle
I tried to do some research about Maryland criminal law. I went to the www.maryland.gov site and eventually landed here. Even with Java enabled and the latest run-time environment installed, I got the message "Java must be enabled to use this site" when attempting to view it with FF. By contrast, IE6 shows it just fine.
However, so do the Wiki editors. Notice that the article has a big red stop sign at the top, along with the message "The neutrality of this article is in dispute."
That is a prime example of the self-policing nature of the Wikipedia -- it's slow and imperfect, but it's not too bad. Even controversial topics usually provide useful external links.
If you want bad presidents, Google for the accomplishments of Presidents Tyler, who later became a member of the Confederacy, and Buchanan, whose policies accelerated the U.S. towards civil war. If you want examples of *real* and *catastrophic* indifference to civil rights, go look at the policy of President Jackson towards native Americans. Google for Indian Removal and Worcestor v. Georgia.
Bush is not my favorite president, but he is a far cry from the worst. Every crime that he or his administration has been accused of -- faking evidence to start a war, restricting civil liberties, reckless spending, giving jobs to political connections, etc. -- has been accomplished in a much more dramatic way by presidents who came before him (McKinley, Roosevelt, Roosevelt again, and Grant, respectively).
The point is that WP does a fantastic job with recent, non-controversial topics. Older research is best found in textbooks, while controversial topics usually require multiple sources -- of which WP could be one.
They do; they just don't admit to it. Instead, it's called "cis(theta)", and it gets used to prove DeMoivre's Theorem.
I don't know whether he's right about that. The only way to truly test it would be to subject control groups of elementary students to both ideas and see which group became more effective problem-solvers. Which experiment would, of course, be sadistic but typical for the education industry (speaking as a teacher of math).
The only odd thing about angles that comes to mind for me is the "hiccup" in the Arg(x,y) = Arctan(y/x) function, which is undefined (or requires special redefinition) at x = 0. I've never found that to be a huge conceptual hurdle -- but then again, I've been using angles since the second grade...
What I do know is that his re-packaging of trig seems interesting from a computational point of view. I'm eager to play with it and see if it yields any payoffs with respect to computer algorithms.
Certainly, it's the first new way to look at trig in a long while. Kudos to him.
Virginia Tech does this, and their grads are quite well-placed in the job market.
2) Besides, why should CS degrees be undesirable? All the stories these days are about CS departments losing enrollment. Seems like a good time to "buy in."
3) The money isn't in coding...it's in management. You are *far* more likely to land a management position with a degree. Granted, the profit motive isn't the only consideration, but still...
P(Vi) = Probability of being pwned by single vulnerability Vi = (chance of vulnerability being exploited)*(chance of user replicating vulnerability conditions).
Probability of being pwned by multiple vulnerabilities = 1 - PROD over all vulnerabilities(1 - P(Vi)).
chance of being pwned = SUM over vulnerabilities of (chance of vulnerability being exploited)*(chance of user encountering exploit).
You can't measure security on number of vulnerabilities alone, because many of them will either affect a small number of users or be encountered in rare conditions.
That said, Firefox still beats IE hands-down because ... IE is used by about 10 x the user base, has a larger number of vulnerabilities, and has vulnerabilities that affect common situations (like those related to clicking on links).
Exactly. In other words: cheap land, not cheap gas.
I disagree that the ACE "did their job well." Several articles -- Google gives me this one and this one -- are pointing out that the construction of the levees directly caused wetland loss, which made New Orleans more vulnerable to big storms. So if the ACE's job was to build levees, then I guess they did good. But if their job was to protect New Orleans, I'd say they did more harm than good.
What should he have said? Can OpenOffice support an Excel spreadsheet in my Word doc (just did one tonight, in fact)? Can the spreadsheet be edited within the doc?
Just curious.
Also, I'm fascinated by the possibility of inserting VOIP into a document ... just think of the prank call possibilities! ("and if you send a copy of this e-mail to all of *your* friends and they click on this link, the person on the other end of the phone will give you a million dollars...")
Prior to this decade, no one understood the word "marriage" to mean anything other than something along the lines of "a commitment of fidelty between a man and a woman." Sure, different cultures had different understandings of how *many* men and women could be involved, but the word "marriage" was never understood to mean anything like "a committed relationship between two partners," which is what the SCoM, and implicitly, your post, take it to mean.
So the jump to gay marriage *is* a redefinition of the word "marriage." Justifiable? Perhaps. But we cannot pretend that it is not a new and special right.
This is why (IMO) even states that are generally gay-friendly have been slow to jump on the gay-marriage band-wagon. They realize that it is a substantial change in the way that "marriage" is conceived of.
From there, the sprawl was just a reflection of our values: Give me my 5 acres away from the noise of the city!
It's most likely both. When people actually realize that they don't own what they've bought, they tend to try to find ways to claim ownership. Hence, DeCSS.
Shades of Standard Oil
Two points:
- Twins are certainly genetically distinct from the rest of the population
... so the only question is whether they would count as two humans or one. - But, they are also clearly two separate organisms; hence, two humans would be the proper counting. A similar enumeration would occur for clones.
The tricky case is Siamese twins: how many organisms do we have? The practical question there is whether it might be morally right to separate the twins if doing so would certainly kill one. I would argue that the Siamese twins are substantially distinct organisms, and that deciding that case would then depend on the necessity of separation in order to save the life of the other.