I'm guessing my sarcasm was a wee bit too subtle for you.;) You see, the Clear Skies Initiative doesn't really help the skies become clear as it rolls back the previous Clean Air measures.
Option "c": Both A and B have a common cause. The classic example of this is that there is a high correlation between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches in a city. Why? Because larger cities have more bars and larger cities have more churches.
Option "d": Both A and B just happen to be moving in the same direction. This option can usually be ruled out by significance testing. However, post-facto analysis can be tricky. If there are 100 possible correlations, and you're counting on 99% significance (individual, not group), then you shouldn't be surprised if one correlation randomly meets that criteria. The answer should be to do a group significance analysis, but that's only valid a priori.
The title is only a lame attempt at humor. I don't really think that global warming/CO_2 falls into option c.
Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...
Yum, Laugenbroetchen. If you've never had them, you don't know what you're missing. It's a recent discovery for me, and I can't get them here in the States - without them arriving through the mail - so I might not enjoy them as much if I actually lived in Germany, but still, Laugenbroetchen. Yum.
(Loosely translated, Laugenbroetchen means pretzel rolls - they are rolls that taste like soft pretzels. However, somehow they taste a lot better than soft pretzels.)
Particles with 3 quarks are fermions, and particles with 2 quarks (or more exactly, 1 quark and 1 anti-quark) are bosons.
However, fermions do not necessarily have 3 quarks, and bosons do not necessarily have 2 quarks. Any particle with a half-integer spin is a fermion. This includes electrons, neutrinos, and hadrons with an odd number of quark/anti-quarks. Any particle with an even-integer spin is a boson. This includes photons, gravitons, and hadrons with an even number of quark/anti-quarks. Neutron-pairs are bosons. This is important because it is responsible for the collapse of neutron stars.
They put it into Meridian. It's at the very end of the episode. Quark was trying to get Kira's holo-image for use in a "sexy" holodeck program. Kira figured out what was going on and sabotaged the program to replace her face with Quark's.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I think this might lead to misconceptions that up/down, strange/charmed, top/bottom have the same relationships to each other as guanine/cytosine and adenine/(uracil|thymine), when, of course, these pairs merely represent (AFAIK) sibling relationships within a family. First of all, quarks come in threes, not twos (unless you consider anti-quarks to be quarks), and secondly, the threesomes can come from combinations from different families, such as \Lambda^0 which is one each of the up, down, and strange quarks.
I was hoping that the designs had something to do with their proposed string theory vibrations, but as far as I can tell, this was not the inspiration. Instead, TFA mentions that the shapes are just to indicate whether the particles are first, second, or third "generation".
So, you think it's a real concern that we might nuke Europe... and you're worried about how the internet is managed. Okay.
And, of course, I should stress that I did not "suggest" that the US nuke Europe. I said "what if". I'm fairly certain that you realize that, but just in case you somehow misread what I wrote, well, read it again.
I do not agree that the current federal administration in the US can be trusted as it is evident that cronyism runs deep and strong right now.
The optimist in me thinks that "right now" cronyism is beginning to stall. A fairly interesting read is at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/, although you'll want to go down to October 10th's entry.
Don't ask what the pessimist (AKA the realist) in me is thinking.
Obviously we're not going to bomb France. It also seems obvious (to us, at least) that we're not going to "bomb" the internet, either. The question remains, why do some people (perhaps such as yourself) think otherwise? This is a real question. Invoking "Iraq" doesn't answer the question, it only inspires more questions. It sounds like what you're saying is that France (EU, UN, or whoever) doesn't like us, they don't think we like them, and so aren't comfortable with us being in control of something as strategically valuable as the internet.
Granted, most Americans would be easily riled up right now if France was the one in charge. Doesn't make the argument any more intelligent, though.
So, the question remains - is there a real reason to be worried, or is this just a case of politicians being politicians? I'm really asking, and not rhetorically.
Some thoughts: it would be hard for us to disrupt the internet for Europe without disrupting it for us, as well - unless you imagine there's going to be a vast US conspiracy that we remarkably manage to keep hidden from everyone else. I'm no internet expert, so maybe I'm missing something. What are the real dangers here? What would be the dangers if France were in charge?
For the record, I have no problem with the UN being in charge of the internet. I'm just trying to understand what the fears are. I could understand it more if the pols were just wanting to do it for the sake of distributing the load better, or if there were specific complaints about what we're doing wrong, but I haven't heard any of that. Maybe I haven't been listening well enough, or maybe this is just a case of Much Ado About Nothing.
I picked France in my example because they do have an arsenal. However, unlike the USSR and USA they did not pursue a Mutually Assured Destruction approach. So, if we are willing to suffer "collateral" casualties, we can nuke France and "win". Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is insane, but if the EU (or France) truly thinks we're insane...
And if we decide to nuke Europe, there's no stopping us there, either. Of course, no one's afraid we're going to do that. So, why are they afraid we're going to do something abusive with the internet? I think you might have something with the Iraq issue, though. Kinda like, "Hello face, I'm going to cut off my nose!"
Seriously, as the GP asked, without resorting to general complaints, is there a reason to believe that we would do something abusive with the internet? Again, the problem with the general complaints, is that it seems that if we're as crazy as we're accused of being (and I'll admit that the foam at the mouth doesn't help), then why is the internet the object being protected? Wouldn't it make more sense for France to start building up their nuclear arsenal if they're really that frightened of what we might do?
(Before you get on a soap box about arms races, I'm not seriously suggesting France do that. I'm just pointing out that the internet doesn't seem as important as national security, even though it could be argued that it is a part of national security.
The bag of popcorn cost more than a penny (including bag, seed, and oil - but not including labor), even back in the 80's, but not much more than a penny.
The biggest profit was probably in the soft drinks which also cost on the order of a penny to make, but which we sold more of.
If they told you they didn't have to pay you overtime, they were lying. We very much had to keep track of overtime hours, so we tried to avoid having anyone work more than 40 hours. The typical employee worked far less than 40 hours, so it typically wasn't an issue.
The theater only kept 10% of the box (which amounted to 60 cents back then). The typical average concession sale (a statistic the head office tracked religiously) was around $1.50, of which $1.25 was probably profit (candy had no ways near as much profit as soft drinks or popcorn, but it also didn't sell as frequently). Note that neither the box nor the concessions "profit" includes such expenses as employee wages, employer taxes (FUTA/SUTA,FICA-ER), or typical operational costs (rent, utilities).
Lest you think I'm defending the high prices of concessions, I'm not. The reason the prices are so high is due to the simple supply/demand curves. If prices were lowered, more people might buy concessions (who currently smuggle in or not), but not enough to make up for the lost profit from lowering prices.
All they'll have left are the bottom and strange quarks, and the bessel functions of the second kind. Good luck with those - can't even build a decent nuclear generator with that.
Luckily, there are very few trees on Mars! One of the stated objectives of the DARPA Grand Challenge was to contributed to unmanned missions to Mars, etc. The main reason for having a totally autonomous system (as opposed to one that responds to remote control) is for when the lag time for remote control is too large.
Granted, the tree observation does potentially limit Terran deployments.
Lastly, I will make this short and to the point' People over the age of 40 should not be able to make or propose ANY legislation that involves technology! More often than not, they do not understand it, they don't understand the implications, and they are incapable of making an educated decision, so they apply their old school, antiquated ideals and sometimes, bring innovation to a screeching halt.
I imagine that I know quite a few people over 40 who know far more about technology than you do. The problem is not the age of the people making these decisions, it's their lack of knowledge. These two issues are not necessarily related, and where they are related, it seems that being too young is more a problem than being too old. (Youth tends to correlate quite highly with a lack of understanding what you do not know.) The bigger problem is that the people making the decisions typically have law degrees, and are very unlikely to have spent any time trying to understand the technology.
For it to be truly immersive, shouldn't they be bragging about 4 \pi steradians instead of 360 degrees? One's a measure of a spherical surface area and the other only describes a circle!
Also, why doesn't π or π give me \pi? It seems to work in general HTML... Interestingly enough, & still works (and a handful of others).
...and ending up in jail always involved a gun being poining at you at some time. Or, at least, people putting their hands on their holstered guns and glowering at you.
Hmm. Interesting. Problem is, I've been to jail. (For failure to pay a ticket.) Never had a gun pointed at me. Ever. Never had someone glower at me with their hands on their holstered guns. Ever.
There is a difference. Maybe some people are just to dense to understand that, though.;)
Again, I'll acknowledge the threat of force. It's just that the stupid "barrel of a gun" cliche' is so overplayed that it's downright annoying. It's as if human cloning has been successful, and these clones all feel compelled to use this cliche' whenever they start their libertarian ranting. I've got nothing against Libertarians - any more than I do against Democrats, Republicans, or Greens.
Oh, and as for the taking your money from other people (I'm assuming you're referring to employer taxes as opposed to employee taxes), I think we probably agree that this is one of the biggest tricks the goverment plays on us. I used to write financial software, so I'm very aware of how much money is taken out before you ever see that number marked as "gross pay" on your pay check!
I'm not claiming that these laws are all legit or good. I never did. I just said it was different. Wouldn't you prefer the option to leave a country over being raped? Wouldn't you prefer the option of jail? I think the particular example chosen, btw, is probably as close to Godwin's law as one can get without actually invoking it.
I won't argue if you're claiming that you are being forced to pay taxes. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the "barrel of a gun" cliche'. You'd have to do a lot more than not pay taxes to literally see the barrel of a gun.
Of course, one big difference is that you are free to leave the country and never pay taxes. The poor woman in the example doesn't have that option. Nor does she have the option of going to jail in lieu of being raped or shot. If she opted to go to jail, then she would have other options available to her. Furthermore, if given that choice in addition to the other two, which choice do you think she would make? Now do you see the difference?
Finally, taxes are not "bad, period". Taxes are necessary to make our government work. If I tried to imagine a goverment without taxes, I end up with either anarchy, or people who are volunteering to run government out of the goodness of their heart. The latter might work for a small community, but I certainly wouldn't trust it for a large government, and I suspect you wouldn't either. Granted, one can argue about the amount of taxes, and I would agree that we are taxed too much. Naturally, most of us would not agree on what to eliminate, however, to reduce our taxes. That's why we have elected officials to make those decisions for us. Needless to say, they don't typically make very good decisions, but that's another subject.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing my sarcasm was a wee bit too subtle for you. ;) You see, the Clear Skies Initiative doesn't really help the skies become clear as it rolls back the previous Clean Air measures.
Option "c": Both A and B have a common cause. The classic example of this is that there is a high correlation between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches in a city. Why? Because larger cities have more bars and larger cities have more churches.
Option "d": Both A and B just happen to be moving in the same direction. This option can usually be ruled out by significance testing. However, post-facto analysis can be tricky. If there are 100 possible correlations, and you're counting on 99% significance (individual, not group), then you shouldn't be surprised if one correlation randomly meets that criteria. The answer should be to do a group significance analysis, but that's only valid a priori.
The title is only a lame attempt at humor. I don't really think that global warming/CO_2 falls into option c.
Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...
Yum, Laugenbroetchen. If you've never had them, you don't know what you're missing. It's a recent discovery for me, and I can't get them here in the States - without them arriving through the mail - so I might not enjoy them as much if I actually lived in Germany, but still, Laugenbroetchen. Yum.
(Loosely translated, Laugenbroetchen means pretzel rolls - they are rolls that taste like soft pretzels. However, somehow they taste a lot better than soft pretzels.)
Particles with 3 quarks are fermions, and particles with 2 quarks (or more exactly, 1 quark and 1 anti-quark) are bosons.
However, fermions do not necessarily have 3 quarks, and bosons do not necessarily have 2 quarks. Any particle with a half-integer spin is a fermion. This includes electrons, neutrinos, and hadrons with an odd number of quark/anti-quarks. Any particle with an even-integer spin is a boson. This includes photons, gravitons, and hadrons with an even number of quark/anti-quarks. Neutron-pairs are bosons. This is important because it is responsible for the collapse of neutron stars.
When I say quarks come in threes, I mean they come in multiples of three - usually -1, 0, or 1 multiple of 3.
A few ways you can get to 3:They put it into Meridian. It's at the very end of the episode. Quark was trying to get Kira's holo-image for use in a "sexy" holodeck program. Kira figured out what was going on and sabotaged the program to replace her face with Quark's.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I think this might lead to misconceptions that up/down, strange/charmed, top/bottom have the same relationships to each other as guanine/cytosine and adenine/(uracil|thymine), when, of course, these pairs merely represent (AFAIK) sibling relationships within a family. First of all, quarks come in threes, not twos (unless you consider anti-quarks to be quarks), and secondly, the threesomes can come from combinations from different families, such as \Lambda^0 which is one each of the up, down, and strange quarks.
I was hoping that the designs had something to do with their proposed string theory vibrations, but as far as I can tell, this was not the inspiration. Instead, TFA mentions that the shapes are just to indicate whether the particles are first, second, or third "generation".
I don't see how this is very different from discovering that some stars are significantly more than 6,000 light years from here.
So, you think it's a real concern that we might nuke Europe ... and you're worried about how the internet is managed. Okay.
And, of course, I should stress that I did not "suggest" that the US nuke Europe. I said "what if". I'm fairly certain that you realize that, but just in case you somehow misread what I wrote, well, read it again.
The optimist in me thinks that "right now" cronyism is beginning to stall. A fairly interesting read is at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/, although you'll want to go down to October 10th's entry.
Don't ask what the pessimist (AKA the realist) in me is thinking.
Obviously we're not going to bomb France. It also seems obvious (to us, at least) that we're not going to "bomb" the internet, either. The question remains, why do some people (perhaps such as yourself) think otherwise? This is a real question. Invoking "Iraq" doesn't answer the question, it only inspires more questions. It sounds like what you're saying is that France (EU, UN, or whoever) doesn't like us, they don't think we like them, and so aren't comfortable with us being in control of something as strategically valuable as the internet.
Granted, most Americans would be easily riled up right now if France was the one in charge. Doesn't make the argument any more intelligent, though.
So, the question remains - is there a real reason to be worried, or is this just a case of politicians being politicians? I'm really asking, and not rhetorically.
Some thoughts: it would be hard for us to disrupt the internet for Europe without disrupting it for us, as well - unless you imagine there's going to be a vast US conspiracy that we remarkably manage to keep hidden from everyone else. I'm no internet expert, so maybe I'm missing something. What are the real dangers here? What would be the dangers if France were in charge?
For the record, I have no problem with the UN being in charge of the internet. I'm just trying to understand what the fears are. I could understand it more if the pols were just wanting to do it for the sake of distributing the load better, or if there were specific complaints about what we're doing wrong, but I haven't heard any of that. Maybe I haven't been listening well enough, or maybe this is just a case of Much Ado About Nothing.
I (and the GP) was wondering why the EU doesn't trust us, since we've been good stewards (AFAIK) with respect to the internet.
So, I guess it's only fair to ask why we wouldn't trust the UN.
I picked France in my example because they do have an arsenal. However, unlike the USSR and USA they did not pursue a Mutually Assured Destruction approach. So, if we are willing to suffer "collateral" casualties, we can nuke France and "win". Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is insane, but if the EU (or France) truly thinks we're insane...
And if we decide to nuke Europe, there's no stopping us there, either. Of course, no one's afraid we're going to do that. So, why are they afraid we're going to do something abusive with the internet? I think you might have something with the Iraq issue, though. Kinda like, "Hello face, I'm going to cut off my nose!"
Seriously, as the GP asked, without resorting to general complaints, is there a reason to believe that we would do something abusive with the internet? Again, the problem with the general complaints, is that it seems that if we're as crazy as we're accused of being (and I'll admit that the foam at the mouth doesn't help), then why is the internet the object being protected? Wouldn't it make more sense for France to start building up their nuclear arsenal if they're really that frightened of what we might do?
(Before you get on a soap box about arms races, I'm not seriously suggesting France do that. I'm just pointing out that the internet doesn't seem as important as national security, even though it could be argued that it is a part of national security.
A couple of points that need to be cleared up:
Lest you think I'm defending the high prices of concessions, I'm not. The reason the prices are so high is due to the simple supply/demand curves. If prices were lowered, more people might buy concessions (who currently smuggle in or not), but not enough to make up for the lost profit from lowering prices.
All they'll have left are the bottom and strange quarks, and the bessel functions of the second kind. Good luck with those - can't even build a decent nuclear generator with that.
A recent Scientific American article does mention the formation of waves in galaxies. It's worth reading!
Luckily, there are very few trees on Mars! One of the stated objectives of the DARPA Grand Challenge was to contributed to unmanned missions to Mars, etc. The main reason for having a totally autonomous system (as opposed to one that responds to remote control) is for when the lag time for remote control is too large.
Granted, the tree observation does potentially limit Terran deployments.
I imagine that I know quite a few people over 40 who know far more about technology than you do. The problem is not the age of the people making these decisions, it's their lack of knowledge. These two issues are not necessarily related, and where they are related, it seems that being too young is more a problem than being too old. (Youth tends to correlate quite highly with a lack of understanding what you do not know.) The bigger problem is that the people making the decisions typically have law degrees, and are very unlikely to have spent any time trying to understand the technology.
Whippersnapper. :P
or you're with the terrorists! ;)
For it to be truly immersive, shouldn't they be bragging about 4 \pi steradians instead of 360 degrees? One's a measure of a spherical surface area and the other only describes a circle!
Also, why doesn't π or π give me \pi? It seems to work in general HTML... Interestingly enough, & still works (and a handful of others).
Hmm. Interesting. Problem is, I've been to jail. (For failure to pay a ticket.) Never had a gun pointed at me. Ever. Never had someone glower at me with their hands on their holstered guns. Ever.
There is a difference. Maybe some people are just to dense to understand that, though. ;)
Again, I'll acknowledge the threat of force. It's just that the stupid "barrel of a gun" cliche' is so overplayed that it's downright annoying. It's as if human cloning has been successful, and these clones all feel compelled to use this cliche' whenever they start their libertarian ranting. I've got nothing against Libertarians - any more than I do against Democrats, Republicans, or Greens.
Oh, and as for the taking your money from other people (I'm assuming you're referring to employer taxes as opposed to employee taxes), I think we probably agree that this is one of the biggest tricks the goverment plays on us. I used to write financial software, so I'm very aware of how much money is taken out before you ever see that number marked as "gross pay" on your pay check!
I'm not claiming that these laws are all legit or good. I never did. I just said it was different. Wouldn't you prefer the option to leave a country over being raped? Wouldn't you prefer the option of jail? I think the particular example chosen, btw, is probably as close to Godwin's law as one can get without actually invoking it.
I won't argue if you're claiming that you are being forced to pay taxes. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the "barrel of a gun" cliche'. You'd have to do a lot more than not pay taxes to literally see the barrel of a gun.
Of course, one big difference is that you are free to leave the country and never pay taxes. The poor woman in the example doesn't have that option. Nor does she have the option of going to jail in lieu of being raped or shot. If she opted to go to jail, then she would have other options available to her. Furthermore, if given that choice in addition to the other two, which choice do you think she would make? Now do you see the difference?
Finally, taxes are not "bad, period". Taxes are necessary to make our government work. If I tried to imagine a goverment without taxes, I end up with either anarchy, or people who are volunteering to run government out of the goodness of their heart. The latter might work for a small community, but I certainly wouldn't trust it for a large government, and I suspect you wouldn't either. Granted, one can argue about the amount of taxes, and I would agree that we are taxed too much. Naturally, most of us would not agree on what to eliminate, however, to reduce our taxes. That's why we have elected officials to make those decisions for us. Needless to say, they don't typically make very good decisions, but that's another subject.