We're all seeing that this and saying we live in a simulation, etc., is simply recasting spirituality and the idea of gods in a new form, right?
Which is fine, you can do that. But as someone used to seeing their religion in the crosshairs, it does strike me as a bit weird whenever the people instinctively scathing about religious ideas decide they really want them afterall, just co-opted under different labels.
Evidence that anti-matter would not preferentially annihilate is also evidence that it is still lurking about somewhere. It's worth noting that we have never performed an experiment outside our solar system, and our reasons for inferring what other regions of the universe are made out of are indirect and largely spectroscopic. What if, e.g., anti-matter has repulsive gravitational effect? Would it wind up as a diffused gas of ostensibly normal hydrogen in interstellar space, helping to compact the normal matter galaxies (perhaps its initial confinement could have contributed to a rapidly inflationary universe?). And/or is there another method/place it could be hiding in the void?
The very fine summary says the $1k is "on top of any reward you get from the app developer." Apparently the rewards for, e.g., Snapchat, range from $250 to $15,000.
Who is paying for painstaking analysis? You might find a bug randomly. Personally, I would be pretty likely to ignore it, but $1k is probably enough incentive for me to formally report it. For that matter, I am quite sure Google and the other companies *do* pay for painstaking analysis, but a lot of bugs are going to be exposed by simply encountering them rather than meditating about source code.
Criminals may pay more but they're probably not going to pay anything for bugs they already know about, they might pay you nothing anyway (hey, they're criminals), you might be one of those honest folk who won't sell to them regardless of what they're paying, you might be dishonest but not motivated to seek out an unknown disreputable buyer when you have easy money right in front of you, etc. Being an honest person, without a bug bounty program finding that bug is worth $0 to you.
Anyway, isn't it a bit contradictory to complain that the money isn't enough to incentivize looking for bugs but then to also complain that it's creating a bunch of people looking for bugs who don't get paid?
"I have magic beans for $1.00 that if you shove up your nose give you laser vision." Alright, come prosecute me for my false advertising.
I can say what I want. Rules about false advertising don't govern speech, they govern the handling of explicit and implicit contracts. It's whether or not I deliver what I say I can deliver that will get actually me in trouble, and then only if I have set up a legitimate physical context for defrauding someone. Yes, you can use speech to forge those contracts. That doesn't mean it's the speech that's regulated, anymore than the fact you can't stab someone with the sharpened end of a picket sign shows that laws about murder are actually regulations on your right to protest.
The NRA has fought multiple lawsuits so that blind people could buy guns. And not "legally blind" where they just have very bad eyesight. People who can't even see light and dark.
Why wouldn't they be allowed to buy guns? Isn't this the demographic least likely to go out and use guns to kill someone? I searched google news and couldn't find any incidents of any person being shot by a blind person. So there is zero public health concern, someone is just cruelly picking on the disabled in the hopes that it sets some groundwork for eroding gun rights more generally. It has all the moral legitimacy of banning blind people from owning anti-government artwork.
I suspect the way they renegotiate this will be with the theaters rather than with the patrons.
Theater seats make money for the theater but they spend the majority of the 24 hour day vacant. Packing people into those seats could be a lot of additional revenue even if done at low prices. Heck, even sitting someone in the seat for $0.00 can be profitable with snacks and advertising, provided you don't have to pay a huge amount for the film you're screening (enter Netflix, producer of cheap original content.) If Netflix can actually provide that horde of viewers the cinemas are going to be in their thrall.
Even if Neflix simply gets the average movie goer subscribed to their plan, once they say, "Actually, you can only use this deal with [X] theaters" or "Full discount for Marvel movies, but only 50% for DC movies" the mob is going to go where they send them and anyone who isn't doing deals to make that $9.95 a month profitable is going to miss out on those customers.
I.e., you can sue yourself, the taxpayer. How would anyone in Sweden receive remedy given that every Swede was affected? You would have to tax each citizen the exact cost of the judgement they receive or else reallocate money from their public services.
Unfortunately neither organization has mastered preventing human error,
Government seems to think that punishing 'human error' is a great way to prevent it -- provided we are talking about citizens acting privately. If I make the human error of not noticing a change in speed limit the government is happy to fine me and possibly jail me and take away my driving privileges.
Businesses can and do punish human error by firing people, or the business itself may be snuffed out by consumer boycott, loss of contracts, or revenue-gobbling lawsuits. Governments, however, tend not apply such drastic consequences to themselves. If the government, e.g., 'accidentally' violates law concerning privacy of its citizens, no one is going to prison.
So while it's true that mistakes happen regardless, in only one case is there a significant incentive to avoid them.
That may not be far off if the EU wants to outlaw Google's smartphone business model, which is to give away Android for free and to make money off of web search prioritization.
This will be a lesson to anyone who wants to try to monetize an open source model.
Absent minimum wage laws, a person can *always* underbid a machine. If a machine can produce burgers for $0.20 per hour of use, I can offer to work for $0.19 per hour. If the burger machine, and the farming machines, and the solar powered self-driving delivery trucks have all brought down the price of burgers to $0.05 a burger, then $0.19 per hour would be plenty of pay to have enough to eat.
I can't exactly predict what wages will be and what costs will be a hundred years in the future, so I couldn't promise we will not run into the kind of problems you indicate, but nor is it a given that supercheap robot workers will be the end of the availability of menial jobs.
Personally, I love tipping. I like the opportunity for generosity and able to show appreciation for people. I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable having people wait on me if I couldn't reward their consideration -- at that point I would rather just take care of it myself.
By the same, though, I greatly dislike when establishments underpay their employees so that tips are necessary. Then tipping is longer generous, it is just not-being-a-jerk-and-stiffing-people.
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment
Vocational schools, maybe. Four year institutions are populated by people who have spent their entire lives in academia and a side effect is they tend to prepare students for research and grad school more than anything else.
But getting into the next level of academics usually involves passing standardized tests (the GRE, subject GREs, MCAT, LSAT, qualifiers, etc.) and even moving up year to year involves securing the previous year's worth of foundational knowledge, and of course the more contents you can pack in to your required curriculum the more prestigious it is, and everyone has their 2 cents on where students are weak and where another class would help. Even high schools are trying to pack more in to prepare to make their students competitive and prepare them for advanced college courses, but which usually means a lot of extra catchup for the students who didn't learn it already and for those who didn't learn it well.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to pack all that into 4 years and teach critical thinking. Critical thinking problems are the ones that students need time to mull over, to try different approaches, to fail and then correct themselves. As a professor, you can't focus on those kind of problems AND familiarize your students with ten chapters worth of material. Nor will your average student spare the time if they have a 18 credit hours of classes and extracurriculars and maybe a campus job -- they will cut their losses by doing the easy problems for all their courses, leaving the more time demanding questions unanswered.
I'm not stepping out to defend Trump's decision, but you are falsely assuming that countries under this agreement are all signing up for the same deal. The accords call for transferring $100 billion per year from developed countries to developing countries. Pretty easy to imagine if that wasn't the case you would have 60% (or less) instead of unanimity. In addition, the present structure of a country's economy, pre-existing measures to mitigate carbon emissions, and strategic aims all could contribute to a different perceived cost for that country. There's certain countries that might well back it and push their allies to do the same *because* they see it as putting America at a relative disadvantage. It may be that there are compelling reasons to adopt it, but personally I would leave "everyone else is doing it" off of the list.
I have spent the last couple of years building flipped curricula for undergraduate chemistry courses. It's had positive results, and I plan to keep developing it, but there are a lot of caveats.
No, you can not just tell your students to read the textbook outside of class, only about 10% of them will actually do it and you will spend your in-class time recapitulating the all concepts to them anyway.
True, you might have more success with upper levels or with something like a literature course. And you can get better results if you quiz them at the start of class, but that's a bit backwards, given your assumption was they would not understand the material until working problems with you, and takes up valuable class time. Requiring them to outline the chapters is a decent strategy except that it's hard to grade, is a lot of work for the students, and still leaves behind those who have the most trouble grasping overall concepts.
The difficulty with teaching inexperienced students is that they don't have any idea what the essential concepts are or why they are important. Textbooks are excellent references, but if they're heavy enough that you can use them as a weapon, then they contain far too much information for your average student to be able to recognize the salient points and how they fit together, at least until they've already been through the course. That is the purpose of lecture, which is basically rounding up all your students by the campfire and telling them a story that they will understand and remember so that they have a way to interpret all the detail in the textbook. For most of our history spoken story is how humans have learned and things like gesticulation and inflection are surprisingly important in creating a sensible emphasis.
In my courses I have ultimately chosen to produce online lectures delivered via a Moodle setup loaded with H5P. I am able to require my students to watch the lectures before class (for a grade) as well as embed interactive questions. Besides keeping my students from nodding off while watching, the questions force them to immediately interpret what they've seen and review the video if they have not understood important aspects. I include worked solutions so that they can do self-assessment on if they have made any errors. When they come to class they work much more complex problems which tie the concepts together. (Anecdotally, I can say this has been fairly effective in that my students seem to require much less "babying" than they used to and usually have more substantial questions to ask during the groupwork).
But it's taken a tremendous amount of time to put together -- I estimate about 5 hours to produce every 15 minutes of video. I am fortunate to be a fulltime lecturer; I don't see how I could have done it with research alongside. Nor could I have done it in my first years of teaching without having first accumulated some traditional teaching experience.
There is also the downside that offering this much help in solving problems can in some ways limit student's ability to develop independent skills. I could assign homework as well, but in this setup they are already assigned to watch videos and at some point you start being abusive of their time. The honest truth is no teaching method exists which can let every student fully retain the contains of a 15 hour course schedule and still live normal happy lives.
But, as helpful as I think guided learning can be, in my opinion part of our goal in college is to teach students to be capable of independent learning. My favorite courses that I have taken myself were not flipped -- they were skilled lecturers who assigned demanding homework problems (probably too long to be done in class anyway). If I needed help I could ask the professors questions during their office hours. This seemed to work well for my peers as well. But we were juniors and seniors at that point knew the ropes, had developed our o
Since every calculation will release a finite quantity of energy, an infinite loop would release an infinite quantity of energy consequently destroying the universe. For safety, the programming language should avoid any looping functionality. Or memory allocation. Actually, probably best if there is a one week delay between executing any instruction during which it can be thoroughly analyzed by physicists for possible singularities.
Child pornography is so vigorously prosecuted because its production involves the sexual exploitation of children and its consumption drives that market of exploitation. However, law enforcement continuing to run the site for a minimal amount of time to catch the perpetrators neither creates additional exploitation nor expands the demand -- its effect is to counter and shrink both of those. The negative it does have is contributing to the continued invasion of privacy of the minors involved. Personally, though, as a victim, I would consider having those pictures out there a slightly longer period of time a minuscule addition to the harm of having them initially released and the acts involved in producing them, especially if it is ongoing and the police need the evidence to even find me and rescue me.
It is comparable to cops going 95 mph on the freeway to reach an emergency. Strictly speaking, they are increasing the chances of a fatal accident. However, they have mitigated those risks by lights, sirens, and extensive training, and only do so to respond directly to an emergency, not to get anywhere they want to go. The premise is entirely different than me going 95 mph to get to a friend's birthday party on time.
Would it be acceptable for law enforcement to create child pornography or launch a distribution site? No. They would be intentionally creating victims. But given an emergency situation where people are already actively being harmed, it's understood that the police can pursue a policy of minimal harm and minimal risk to resolve the situation, rather than the impossible handicap of zero harm and zero risk.
It's like saying it makes no sense to have a house way across town when you could rent a living space at your work. People don't want to live at work. They want natural barriers between the different aspects of their life and the groups of people associated with them.
For those who keep active Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter accounts, etc., one of those will be how they casually chat with close friends, one will be how they keep in touch with family and work friends, one will be where they flirt, one will be where they post about their political concerns, etc. Having distinct non-interoperable services suits them just fine.
To avoid such expensive lawsuits, the government should revoke the copyright monopolies they have granted these organizations. Then they won't have to worry about anyone infringing on them.
The Bohr model does have its usefulness, and I am certainly with you that those of us in the sciences need a lot more humility in how we approach the general public with what we think they should know and care about.
But it is also overextended and the cause of a great deal of frustration for people who want to genuinely understand the bizarre quantum phenomenally we nerds keep excitedly touting, but instead find out that they have hinged their understanding on a lie that is nearly useless outside the narrow scope of things like spectroscopy.
IMHO if we want to invite the layfolk in to the quantum domain we really need to emphasize teaching people about waves more. QM is much more intuitive as a topic of wave phenomena. (Plus, the wave picture will serve to understand classical optics, E&M, acoustics, etc.)
Teaching people QM without the wave part is like trying to each people economics without the calculus part. In theory it is "simpler" but ask just about any student who has learned about integration and they will say that they find the explanations invoking calculus much more comprehensible.
A 256 GB micro SD card weights 0.4g, is less than 2cm in width, and costs around $40. I have 1080p movies on my computer that are about 1 hr/GB. So I'm quite sure that one of these body cam devices could record a couple weeks of continuous footage and probably much, much more. That's plenty of time for legal action to initiate and the data to be uploaded if there is any debate over what has happened during an arrest. Privacy is not an issue if the data is stored encrypted. You just require that a judge has to sign off on it before the decryption key can be accessed by anyone (including the cop).
What if America can't stop the asteroid from hitting the earth, but can stop it from hitting the United States (or close strategic ally)? Other countries may want to invest in their versions of this.
We don't need federalism. The federal gov't were the ones that put a stop to the farce that was "Separate but Equal". They broke up the Trusts. They enabled the Unions that created the middle class. They bring in real and effective disaster relief and keep our shipping ports open.
The judicial body which struck down "seperate but equal" is the same one that made the Dred Scott decision. The federal government has committed Indian genocide. They've locked up Japanese in internment camps. They built Gitmo and secret offshore prisons. They've pushed No Child Left Behind, the drug war, Mccarthyism and any number of other bad policies.
Where the federal government has been successful is in implementing at a national level policies which have been proven effective and desirable in an increasing number of states. If you're only going to look at the tipping point then it's easy to blame the states which are still holding out as the enemies of progress. But what you're forgetting is that under a single national government the more progressive states would also have been prevented from being progressive up unto that point. Vermont ended slavery in 1777, and the other northern states by 1804. It would been an awful long time before there were any free blacks in the United States if it had to wait for nation-wide concurrence.
Look at Flint, Mi's Water supply (that Gov Snyder is still fighter the cleanup of) and the complete breakdown in Democracy it represented.
You're going cite one of the fifty states having a major problem as proof against federalism? So how many of the 43 presidents behaving badly do I need to cite in response? How does the Flint debacle compare with the EPA spill in Colorado?
Any government is prone to good and bad, whether at the state or national level. The advantage of a federalist system is compartmentalizing the bad while allowing the good to gradually increase its purchase. For that matter, if we had not been conferring so much power on the national government in recent years, the prospect of putting Trump in charge of it would be far less ominous.
Slashdot Mirror
We're all seeing that this and saying we live in a simulation, etc., is simply recasting spirituality and the idea of gods in a new form, right?
Which is fine, you can do that. But as someone used to seeing their religion in the crosshairs, it does strike me as a bit weird whenever the people instinctively scathing about religious ideas decide they really want them afterall, just co-opted under different labels.
Evidence that anti-matter would not preferentially annihilate is also evidence that it is still lurking about somewhere. It's worth noting that we have never performed an experiment outside our solar system, and our reasons for inferring what other regions of the universe are made out of are indirect and largely spectroscopic. What if, e.g., anti-matter has repulsive gravitational effect? Would it wind up as a diffused gas of ostensibly normal hydrogen in interstellar space, helping to compact the normal matter galaxies (perhaps its initial confinement could have contributed to a rapidly inflationary universe?). And/or is there another method/place it could be hiding in the void?
The very fine summary says the $1k is "on top of any reward you get from the app developer." Apparently the rewards for, e.g., Snapchat, range from $250 to $15,000.
Who is paying for painstaking analysis? You might find a bug randomly. Personally, I would be pretty likely to ignore it, but $1k is probably enough incentive for me to formally report it. For that matter, I am quite sure Google and the other companies *do* pay for painstaking analysis, but a lot of bugs are going to be exposed by simply encountering them rather than meditating about source code.
Criminals may pay more but they're probably not going to pay anything for bugs they already know about, they might pay you nothing anyway (hey, they're criminals), you might be one of those honest folk who won't sell to them regardless of what they're paying, you might be dishonest but not motivated to seek out an unknown disreputable buyer when you have easy money right in front of you, etc. Being an honest person, without a bug bounty program finding that bug is worth $0 to you.
Anyway, isn't it a bit contradictory to complain that the money isn't enough to incentivize looking for bugs but then to also complain that it's creating a bunch of people looking for bugs who don't get paid?
"I have magic beans for $1.00 that if you shove up your nose give you laser vision." Alright, come prosecute me for my false advertising.
I can say what I want. Rules about false advertising don't govern speech, they govern the handling of explicit and implicit contracts. It's whether or not I deliver what I say I can deliver that will get actually me in trouble, and then only if I have set up a legitimate physical context for defrauding someone. Yes, you can use speech to forge those contracts. That doesn't mean it's the speech that's regulated, anymore than the fact you can't stab someone with the sharpened end of a picket sign shows that laws about murder are actually regulations on your right to protest.
The NRA has fought multiple lawsuits so that blind people could buy guns. And not "legally blind" where they just have very bad eyesight. People who can't even see light and dark.
Why wouldn't they be allowed to buy guns? Isn't this the demographic least likely to go out and use guns to kill someone? I searched google news and couldn't find any incidents of any person being shot by a blind person. So there is zero public health concern, someone is just cruelly picking on the disabled in the hopes that it sets some groundwork for eroding gun rights more generally. It has all the moral legitimacy of banning blind people from owning anti-government artwork.
Enjoying benefits without contribution is theft.
In which slashdot pivots to supporting perpetual copyright just to stick it to the anti-government right.
I suspect the way they renegotiate this will be with the theaters rather than with the patrons.
Theater seats make money for the theater but they spend the majority of the 24 hour day vacant. Packing people into those seats could be a lot of additional revenue even if done at low prices. Heck, even sitting someone in the seat for $0.00 can be profitable with snacks and advertising, provided you don't have to pay a huge amount for the film you're screening (enter Netflix, producer of cheap original content.) If Netflix can actually provide that horde of viewers the cinemas are going to be in their thrall.
Even if Neflix simply gets the average movie goer subscribed to their plan, once they say, "Actually, you can only use this deal with [X] theaters" or "Full discount for Marvel movies, but only 50% for DC movies" the mob is going to go where they send them and anyone who isn't doing deals to make that $9.95 a month profitable is going to miss out on those customers.
Researcher 1: "Our nanotube project is outputting completely garbage data. I guess this means we can't publish."
Researcher 2: "Or... can we?"
You can sue the government in many democracies.
I.e., you can sue yourself, the taxpayer. How would anyone in Sweden receive remedy given that every Swede was affected? You would have to tax each citizen the exact cost of the judgement they receive or else reallocate money from their public services.
Unfortunately neither organization has mastered preventing human error,
Government seems to think that punishing 'human error' is a great way to prevent it -- provided we are talking about citizens acting privately. If I make the human error of not noticing a change in speed limit the government is happy to fine me and possibly jail me and take away my driving privileges.
Businesses can and do punish human error by firing people, or the business itself may be snuffed out by consumer boycott, loss of contracts, or revenue-gobbling lawsuits. Governments, however, tend not apply such drastic consequences to themselves. If the government, e.g., 'accidentally' violates law concerning privacy of its citizens, no one is going to prison.
So while it's true that mistakes happen regardless, in only one case is there a significant incentive to avoid them.
That may not be far off if the EU wants to outlaw Google's smartphone business model, which is to give away Android for free and to make money off of web search prioritization.
This will be a lesson to anyone who wants to try to monetize an open source model.
Absent minimum wage laws, a person can *always* underbid a machine. If a machine can produce burgers for $0.20 per hour of use, I can offer to work for $0.19 per hour. If the burger machine, and the farming machines, and the solar powered self-driving delivery trucks have all brought down the price of burgers to $0.05 a burger, then $0.19 per hour would be plenty of pay to have enough to eat.
I can't exactly predict what wages will be and what costs will be a hundred years in the future, so I couldn't promise we will not run into the kind of problems you indicate, but nor is it a given that supercheap robot workers will be the end of the availability of menial jobs.
Personally, I love tipping. I like the opportunity for generosity and able to show appreciation for people. I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable having people wait on me if I couldn't reward their consideration -- at that point I would rather just take care of it myself.
By the same, though, I greatly dislike when establishments underpay their employees so that tips are necessary. Then tipping is longer generous, it is just not-being-a-jerk-and-stiffing-people.
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment
Vocational schools, maybe. Four year institutions are populated by people who have spent their entire lives in academia and a side effect is they tend to prepare students for research and grad school more than anything else.
But getting into the next level of academics usually involves passing standardized tests (the GRE, subject GREs, MCAT, LSAT, qualifiers, etc.) and even moving up year to year involves securing the previous year's worth of foundational knowledge, and of course the more contents you can pack in to your required curriculum the more prestigious it is, and everyone has their 2 cents on where students are weak and where another class would help. Even high schools are trying to pack more in to prepare to make their students competitive and prepare them for advanced college courses, but which usually means a lot of extra catchup for the students who didn't learn it already and for those who didn't learn it well.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to pack all that into 4 years and teach critical thinking. Critical thinking problems are the ones that students need time to mull over, to try different approaches, to fail and then correct themselves. As a professor, you can't focus on those kind of problems AND familiarize your students with ten chapters worth of material. Nor will your average student spare the time if they have a 18 credit hours of classes and extracurriculars and maybe a campus job -- they will cut their losses by doing the easy problems for all their courses, leaving the more time demanding questions unanswered.
I'm not stepping out to defend Trump's decision, but you are falsely assuming that countries under this agreement are all signing up for the same deal. The accords call for transferring $100 billion per year from developed countries to developing countries. Pretty easy to imagine if that wasn't the case you would have 60% (or less) instead of unanimity. In addition, the present structure of a country's economy, pre-existing measures to mitigate carbon emissions, and strategic aims all could contribute to a different perceived cost for that country. There's certain countries that might well back it and push their allies to do the same *because* they see it as putting America at a relative disadvantage. It may be that there are compelling reasons to adopt it, but personally I would leave "everyone else is doing it" off of the list.
I have spent the last couple of years building flipped curricula for undergraduate chemistry courses. It's had positive results, and I plan to keep developing it, but there are a lot of caveats.
No, you can not just tell your students to read the textbook outside of class, only about 10% of them will actually do it and you will spend your in-class time recapitulating the all concepts to them anyway.
True, you might have more success with upper levels or with something like a literature course. And you can get better results if you quiz them at the start of class, but that's a bit backwards, given your assumption was they would not understand the material until working problems with you, and takes up valuable class time. Requiring them to outline the chapters is a decent strategy except that it's hard to grade, is a lot of work for the students, and still leaves behind those who have the most trouble grasping overall concepts.
The difficulty with teaching inexperienced students is that they don't have any idea what the essential concepts are or why they are important. Textbooks are excellent references, but if they're heavy enough that you can use them as a weapon, then they contain far too much information for your average student to be able to recognize the salient points and how they fit together, at least until they've already been through the course. That is the purpose of lecture, which is basically rounding up all your students by the campfire and telling them a story that they will understand and remember so that they have a way to interpret all the detail in the textbook. For most of our history spoken story is how humans have learned and things like gesticulation and inflection are surprisingly important in creating a sensible emphasis.
In my courses I have ultimately chosen to produce online lectures delivered via a Moodle setup loaded with H5P. I am able to require my students to watch the lectures before class (for a grade) as well as embed interactive questions. Besides keeping my students from nodding off while watching, the questions force them to immediately interpret what they've seen and review the video if they have not understood important aspects. I include worked solutions so that they can do self-assessment on if they have made any errors. When they come to class they work much more complex problems which tie the concepts together. (Anecdotally, I can say this has been fairly effective in that my students seem to require much less "babying" than they used to and usually have more substantial questions to ask during the groupwork).
But it's taken a tremendous amount of time to put together -- I estimate about 5 hours to produce every 15 minutes of video. I am fortunate to be a fulltime lecturer; I don't see how I could have done it with research alongside. Nor could I have done it in my first years of teaching without having first accumulated some traditional teaching experience.
There is also the downside that offering this much help in solving problems can in some ways limit student's ability to develop independent skills. I could assign homework as well, but in this setup they are already assigned to watch videos and at some point you start being abusive of their time. The honest truth is no teaching method exists which can let every student fully retain the contains of a 15 hour course schedule and still live normal happy lives.
But, as helpful as I think guided learning can be, in my opinion part of our goal in college is to teach students to be capable of independent learning. My favorite courses that I have taken myself were not flipped -- they were skilled lecturers who assigned demanding homework problems (probably too long to be done in class anyway). If I needed help I could ask the professors questions during their office hours. This seemed to work well for my peers as well. But we were juniors and seniors at that point knew the ropes, had developed our o
Since every calculation will release a finite quantity of energy, an infinite loop would release an infinite quantity of energy consequently destroying the universe. For safety, the programming language should avoid any looping functionality. Or memory allocation. Actually, probably best if there is a one week delay between executing any instruction during which it can be thoroughly analyzed by physicists for possible singularities.
Child pornography is so vigorously prosecuted because its production involves the sexual exploitation of children and its consumption drives that market of exploitation. However, law enforcement continuing to run the site for a minimal amount of time to catch the perpetrators neither creates additional exploitation nor expands the demand -- its effect is to counter and shrink both of those. The negative it does have is contributing to the continued invasion of privacy of the minors involved. Personally, though, as a victim, I would consider having those pictures out there a slightly longer period of time a minuscule addition to the harm of having them initially released and the acts involved in producing them, especially if it is ongoing and the police need the evidence to even find me and rescue me.
It is comparable to cops going 95 mph on the freeway to reach an emergency. Strictly speaking, they are increasing the chances of a fatal accident. However, they have mitigated those risks by lights, sirens, and extensive training, and only do so to respond directly to an emergency, not to get anywhere they want to go. The premise is entirely different than me going 95 mph to get to a friend's birthday party on time.
Would it be acceptable for law enforcement to create child pornography or launch a distribution site? No. They would be intentionally creating victims. But given an emergency situation where people are already actively being harmed, it's understood that the police can pursue a policy of minimal harm and minimal risk to resolve the situation, rather than the impossible handicap of zero harm and zero risk.
It's like saying it makes no sense to have a house way across town when you could rent a living space at your work. People don't want to live at work. They want natural barriers between the different aspects of their life and the groups of people associated with them.
For those who keep active Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter accounts, etc., one of those will be how they casually chat with close friends, one will be how they keep in touch with family and work friends, one will be where they flirt, one will be where they post about their political concerns, etc. Having distinct non-interoperable services suits them just fine.
To avoid such expensive lawsuits, the government should revoke the copyright monopolies they have granted these organizations. Then they won't have to worry about anyone infringing on them.
The Bohr model does have its usefulness, and I am certainly with you that those of us in the sciences need a lot more humility in how we approach the general public with what we think they should know and care about.
But it is also overextended and the cause of a great deal of frustration for people who want to genuinely understand the bizarre quantum phenomenally we nerds keep excitedly touting, but instead find out that they have hinged their understanding on a lie that is nearly useless outside the narrow scope of things like spectroscopy.
IMHO if we want to invite the layfolk in to the quantum domain we really need to emphasize teaching people about waves more. QM is much more intuitive as a topic of wave phenomena. (Plus, the wave picture will serve to understand classical optics, E&M, acoustics, etc.)
Teaching people QM without the wave part is like trying to each people economics without the calculus part. In theory it is "simpler" but ask just about any student who has learned about integration and they will say that they find the explanations invoking calculus much more comprehensible.
A 256 GB micro SD card weights 0.4g, is less than 2cm in width, and costs around $40. I have 1080p movies on my computer that are about 1 hr/GB. So I'm quite sure that one of these body cam devices could record a couple weeks of continuous footage and probably much, much more. That's plenty of time for legal action to initiate and the data to be uploaded if there is any debate over what has happened during an arrest. Privacy is not an issue if the data is stored encrypted. You just require that a judge has to sign off on it before the decryption key can be accessed by anyone (including the cop).
In the Solvay process it would be
(1) NaCl + CO2 + NH3 + H2O NaHCO3 + NH4Cl
(2) 2 NH4Cl + CaO 2 NH3 + CaCl2 + H2O
What if America can't stop the asteroid from hitting the earth, but can stop it from hitting the United States (or close strategic ally)? Other countries may want to invest in their versions of this.
!Best-known for playing Princess Leia
What do you mean she's not best known for this???
We don't need federalism. The federal gov't were the ones that put a stop to the farce that was "Separate but Equal". They broke up the Trusts. They enabled the Unions that created the middle class. They bring in real and effective disaster relief and keep our shipping ports open.
The judicial body which struck down "seperate but equal" is the same one that made the Dred Scott decision. The federal government has committed Indian genocide. They've locked up Japanese in internment camps. They built Gitmo and secret offshore prisons. They've pushed No Child Left Behind, the drug war, Mccarthyism and any number of other bad policies.
Where the federal government has been successful is in implementing at a national level policies which have been proven effective and desirable in an increasing number of states. If you're only going to look at the tipping point then it's easy to blame the states which are still holding out as the enemies of progress. But what you're forgetting is that under a single national government the more progressive states would also have been prevented from being progressive up unto that point. Vermont ended slavery in 1777, and the other northern states by 1804. It would been an awful long time before there were any free blacks in the United States if it had to wait for nation-wide concurrence.
Look at Flint, Mi's Water supply (that Gov Snyder is still fighter the cleanup of) and the complete breakdown in Democracy it represented.
You're going cite one of the fifty states having a major problem as proof against federalism? So how many of the 43 presidents behaving badly do I need to cite in response? How does the Flint debacle compare with the EPA spill in Colorado?
Any government is prone to good and bad, whether at the state or national level. The advantage of a federalist system is compartmentalizing the bad while allowing the good to gradually increase its purchase. For that matter, if we had not been conferring so much power on the national government in recent years, the prospect of putting Trump in charge of it would be far less ominous.