Which picture are you referring to? Can you give me a URL (to the picture), 'cause I'm not seeing it. Yes, I'm being serious. If it's already in your cache, perhaps Ctrl+Shift+R will allow you to see what I'm seeing.
Hillary's is good overall, but that picture of her is awful. Pursed schoolmarm lips? WTF? (Consider me a very tepid and unhappy supporter of Hillary.)
When I looked at her site, I didn't see a smirk. Is it still there? If so, could you post the image's URL? (I'm no fan of Hillary, either, but I also don't think she's as bad as many people do. It seems that the typical Republican voter thinks far worse of Hillary than the typical Republican senator. I'm sure Fox News has nothing to do with that.)
Ceasing interference with their politics in order to stop terrorism is a bad idea. It proves that terrorism is an effective tool against the US. (See also, Barbary Pirates.)
Ceasing interference with their politics because its the right thing to do is a great idea.
Convincing anyone that our reasons are the latter is an impossible idea.:)
Granted, I've given no solution here. Perhaps the best solution is to cease interference with their politics (for the right reason of course), but if they take this as a sign that terrorism is a good idea in the future we thoroughly disabuse them of this idea at that time - while maintaining (due) vigilance against it in the present, of course. (Note: due vigilance does not include preventing fluids on flights!)
When Mars is at its furthest from us it only takes 21 minutes to receive a signal from the rover. (And, yes, I know it's blocked by the Sun then.) That's 42 minutes round-trip. I guess one explanation is that their first attempt failed and they didn't find out until 42 minutes later. (Alternatively, and more likely, their first X attempts failed and Mars was closer.)
Yeah, my dad was in the military and has told me the same stories. Thing is, if you can go below zero (whether you can probably depends on what you're doing - e.g., having a war on "terror") then that proves that you need even more money next year!
It probably won't change your mind, but I thought it would be useful to throw out a few numbers: NASA budget: $16.8 billion (2007) US Military budget: $532.8 billion (2007)
I'll admit that the numbers were actually closer than I expected. OTOH, when it comes to the military, there's the budget and then there's what's actually spent. (Yes, this can be true with NASA, too, but to a much smaller extent.)
If it is unethical to torture somebody who will be tortured no matter what, then it apparently doesn't mean much. So I'll change it: it is unethical to cause somebody to be tortured. The torturer is absolved.
The key part to this phrase is "no matter what". In real life, of course, there are no certainties. For sake of argument, let's assume the going rate is $1000/hour for torturers. If everyone refused to comply with the incentive to torture, the person would not be tortured. Now, many people will say to themselves, "well, someone else will torture that guy anyway, so I might as well get paid $1000/hour to do the work." Unfortunately, given a labor force of 150 million people (or so), one could argue that - beyond a reasonable doubt - this person will be tortured (assuming it's legal). That kind of argument would also have worked (and did) in Nazi Germany in many cases where unspeakable evil happened. That does not absolve the torturer, however. The torturer who rationalizes their decision is part of the system and is thus part of the evil. They are not absolved.
More than a few people have hypothesized that autism is a mental (and, naturally, much more complex) version of sickle cell anemia. One set of the genes is beneficial. Two sets are harmful. This is obviously an over-simplification, but it is worth pondering. There is definitely a strong correlation with regions with technology workers and rates of autism.
Also, (assuming it works - big assumption) it's worth noting that this is not so much a "cure" as a "prevention". Once the brain gets wired a certain way, it's going to take an awful lot to rewire it. Proper fatty acid metabolism by itself won't fix wiring that's already messed up. (And, yes, I know that the brain is not simply a computer with wires, etc.)
Are you mistaking acceleration for velocity?
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure where you get 1400 years, but here's the real scoop: to travel 10.5 light years, accelerating for the first half of the trip and decelerating for the second half, it would take less than 5 years - for the person actually on the rocket. Meanwhile, a little over 12 years would have passed on Earth.
The authors are friends of mine, the math mistake has no impact on the conclusions of the paper, and it's not really that unusual of an event (as witnessed by other comments on this thread). I hardly think having a math mistake in a paper is anything like screwing over a customer. Nor am I trying to enhance their ability to make further math mistakes. Maybe you're just being sarcastic, in which case, never mind.
Wal-mart does not put all of its profit back into R&D or other products, etc. Much of the profit (probably most) goes to share-holders, etc. Hence, it's a non-profit. Of course, as others have pointed out Quanta is not necessarily claiming to be a charity. It's the OLPC program that's the charity. I have no idea if Quanta actually is a charity, but making a profit on a single item does not mean you're not a non-profit organization. Presumably, the Girl Scouts are also a non-profit, despite their profits from selling cookies.
God I think you liberal/hippie/socialists types are dumb.
Something about glass houses and stones might apply here. Humorously, you're not even throwing the stones towards me, as it's hard to pin me down as a liberal - see my pro-life, anti-drug comments on other threads. Granted, I'm no conservative, either. Basically, I think for myself.
In this case I've actually worked with both authors, and when I mentioned it (I read it shortly after it came out), the author who wrote that bit realized that the error was in the original. You are correct that errors are often introduced during the editing stage (as you add minor points to please the peer reviewers, etc.), but it wasn't true in this case. As for peer reviewers not being copy editors, you are absolutely correct, but with so many eyes on the paper, you would have thought that someone would have caught it and pointed it out. I know that when I get my proof back, I check every equation against the original to make sure they haven't messed it up. Of course, in this case, you'd just look and see that they copied what you had down without thinking about the fact that the math was wrong.
I recently had an article that was about to be published where the entire caption was missing from a table. Luckily I caught that in the proofs before it was actually published.
Anyone who's read a significant number of journal articles has spotted some huge errors that somehow got published. I know of one paper (not naming any names!) where in explaining how a calculation was done it had the line: 18-7=9. Clearly (from context) the line meant to say 17-8=9, but I found it humorous that such a fundamental error got past both the original authors proof-reading and the peer-review process. These things go back and forth a couple times, usually.
Peer review isn't a perfect process. It just helps reduce the noise-to-signal ratio.
I was assuming links/lynx and/or pine/elm. (IIRC, links is actually better than lynx.)
I actually still use pine. First time I used elm was around 1988 or so. Only had one other friend with an e-mail account, though. I used lynx back in the day when I only had dial-up. I've since done a few things with links where I wanted some automation control. (Haven't touched it in several years, however.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is implication that they traded together more than anything?
Not necessarily. However, that assumption would agree with the Biblical texts. According to Genesis, the Jews had been trading with Egypt prior to their journey to Egypt. The "spell" is from 3,000 BC, and the journey into Egypt wasn't until 1,700 BC, so it's easy to believe that this was during their period of trading.
I should also point out, that this doesn't really prove much of anything beyond what any Biblical scholar already knew. There is plenty of historical evidence of Semitic and Egyptian interaction during the time period in question. Also, it seems quite consistent with other historical accounts that the Egyptians would have made slaves of foreigners. They certainly wouldn't be the last culture to do so (nor probably the first). I see no reason to doubt the Biblical account here. I think that if you read the Bible with a critical eye (and if you haven't already, I strongly recommend that you do), it's not difficult to separate the parts that should be read as historical from the parts that should not. A good rule of thumb (IMO) is the ratio of verses/years. As that ratio goes up, the historical accuracy is likely to go down. As with any rule of thumb, there are exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
I read a recent blog where a real scientist showed that hydrothermal vents could contribute as much as 0.0000343 K!
Which picture are you referring to? I see one where it looks like she's talking. Is that the one you're talking about?
Which picture are you referring to? Can you give me a URL (to the picture), 'cause I'm not seeing it. Yes, I'm being serious. If it's already in your cache, perhaps Ctrl+Shift+R will allow you to see what I'm seeing.
The problem is that you're taking up all the slack. I'd like to have some, too.
Ceasing interference with their politics in order to stop terrorism is a bad idea. It proves that terrorism is an effective tool against the US. (See also, Barbary Pirates.)
Ceasing interference with their politics because its the right thing to do is a great idea.
Convincing anyone that our reasons are the latter is an impossible idea. :)
Granted, I've given no solution here. Perhaps the best solution is to cease interference with their politics (for the right reason of course), but if they take this as a sign that terrorism is a good idea in the future we thoroughly disabuse them of this idea at that time - while maintaining (due) vigilance against it in the present, of course. (Note: due vigilance does not include preventing fluids on flights!)
Fnord
When Mars is at its furthest from us it only takes 21 minutes to receive a signal from the rover. (And, yes, I know it's blocked by the Sun then.) That's 42 minutes round-trip. I guess one explanation is that their first attempt failed and they didn't find out until 42 minutes later. (Alternatively, and more likely, their first X attempts failed and Mars was closer.)
I'm guessing the name is meant to suggest similarities to A*, but you think they'd mention that in the article.
That really depends on who you ask. 100 years is definitely a pessimistic claim. That said, I'm fairly pessimistic, too.
Yeah, my dad was in the military and has told me the same stories. Thing is, if you can go below zero (whether you can probably depends on what you're doing - e.g., having a war on "terror") then that proves that you need even more money next year!
It probably won't change your mind, but I thought it would be useful to throw out a few numbers:
NASA budget: $16.8 billion (2007)
US Military budget: $532.8 billion (2007)
I'll admit that the numbers were actually closer than I expected. OTOH, when it comes to the military, there's the budget and then there's what's actually spent. (Yes, this can be true with NASA, too, but to a much smaller extent.)
The key part to this phrase is "no matter what". In real life, of course, there are no certainties. For sake of argument, let's assume the going rate is $1000/hour for torturers. If everyone refused to comply with the incentive to torture, the person would not be tortured. Now, many people will say to themselves, "well, someone else will torture that guy anyway, so I might as well get paid $1000/hour to do the work." Unfortunately, given a labor force of 150 million people (or so), one could argue that - beyond a reasonable doubt - this person will be tortured (assuming it's legal). That kind of argument would also have worked (and did) in Nazi Germany in many cases where unspeakable evil happened. That does not absolve the torturer, however. The torturer who rationalizes their decision is part of the system and is thus part of the evil. They are not absolved.
More than a few people have hypothesized that autism is a mental (and, naturally, much more complex) version of sickle cell anemia. One set of the genes is beneficial. Two sets are harmful. This is obviously an over-simplification, but it is worth pondering. There is definitely a strong correlation with regions with technology workers and rates of autism.
Also, (assuming it works - big assumption) it's worth noting that this is not so much a "cure" as a "prevention". Once the brain gets wired a certain way, it's going to take an awful lot to rewire it. Proper fatty acid metabolism by itself won't fix wiring that's already messed up. (And, yes, I know that the brain is not simply a computer with wires, etc.)
I'm not sure where you get 1400 years, but here's the real scoop: to travel 10.5 light years, accelerating for the first half of the trip and decelerating for the second half, it would take less than 5 years - for the person actually on the rocket. Meanwhile, a little over 12 years would have passed on Earth.
The authors are friends of mine, the math mistake has no impact on the conclusions of the paper, and it's not really that unusual of an event (as witnessed by other comments on this thread). I hardly think having a math mistake in a paper is anything like screwing over a customer. Nor am I trying to enhance their ability to make further math mistakes. Maybe you're just being sarcastic, in which case, never mind.
Wal-mart does not put all of its profit back into R&D or other products, etc. Much of the profit (probably most) goes to share-holders, etc. Hence, it's a non-profit. Of course, as others have pointed out Quanta is not necessarily claiming to be a charity. It's the OLPC program that's the charity. I have no idea if Quanta actually is a charity, but making a profit on a single item does not mean you're not a non-profit organization. Presumably, the Girl Scouts are also a non-profit, despite their profits from selling cookies.
Something about glass houses and stones might apply here. Humorously, you're not even throwing the stones towards me, as it's hard to pin me down as a liberal - see my pro-life, anti-drug comments on other threads. Granted, I'm no conservative, either. Basically, I think for myself.
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - someone, at some time
In this case I've actually worked with both authors, and when I mentioned it (I read it shortly after it came out), the author who wrote that bit realized that the error was in the original. You are correct that errors are often introduced during the editing stage (as you add minor points to please the peer reviewers, etc.), but it wasn't true in this case. As for peer reviewers not being copy editors, you are absolutely correct, but with so many eyes on the paper, you would have thought that someone would have caught it and pointed it out. I know that when I get my proof back, I check every equation against the original to make sure they haven't messed it up. Of course, in this case, you'd just look and see that they copied what you had down without thinking about the fact that the math was wrong.
I recently had an article that was about to be published where the entire caption was missing from a table. Luckily I caught that in the proofs before it was actually published.
Take emacs versus vi, for example...
Anyone who's read a significant number of journal articles has spotted some huge errors that somehow got published. I know of one paper (not naming any names!) where in explaining how a calculation was done it had the line: 18-7=9. Clearly (from context) the line meant to say 17-8=9, but I found it humorous that such a fundamental error got past both the original authors proof-reading and the peer-review process. These things go back and forth a couple times, usually.
Peer review isn't a perfect process. It just helps reduce the noise-to-signal ratio.
I was assuming links/lynx and/or pine/elm. (IIRC, links is actually better than lynx.)
I actually still use pine. First time I used elm was around 1988 or so. Only had one other friend with an e-mail account, though. I used lynx back in the day when I only had dial-up. I've since done a few things with links where I wanted some automation control. (Haven't touched it in several years, however.)
Jst rembr 2 spl rite. Evry chr cnts!
Not necessarily. However, that assumption would agree with the Biblical texts. According to Genesis, the Jews had been trading with Egypt prior to their journey to Egypt. The "spell" is from 3,000 BC, and the journey into Egypt wasn't until 1,700 BC, so it's easy to believe that this was during their period of trading.
I should also point out, that this doesn't really prove much of anything beyond what any Biblical scholar already knew. There is plenty of historical evidence of Semitic and Egyptian interaction during the time period in question. Also, it seems quite consistent with other historical accounts that the Egyptians would have made slaves of foreigners. They certainly wouldn't be the last culture to do so (nor probably the first). I see no reason to doubt the Biblical account here. I think that if you read the Bible with a critical eye (and if you haven't already, I strongly recommend that you do), it's not difficult to separate the parts that should be read as historical from the parts that should not. A good rule of thumb (IMO) is the ratio of verses/years. As that ratio goes up, the historical accuracy is likely to go down. As with any rule of thumb, there are exceptions.