Plus it's not like they had proper machining tools to craft that thing with. When it's that big across it can look well enough like a perfect circle while not at all being a perfect circle. So even at that it would well have been a 3:1 ratio with imperfections in its execution.
I came in here to say this and now that it's been said properly, I will just quietly withdraw. Though I doubt the nut job behind this movie knows enough math to be able to crunch the numbers supporting this.
If you want to call opposing gay marriage being a hate campaign then you'll also have to accept it when the other side calls pro-choice initiatives murder campaigns. Or other similarly stupid word transformations meant to coerce people to your cause.
What was done to Eich was unjust and indefensible. Everyone who had a hand in it should be ashamed of themselves.
You know, if you relabel things to suit your wishes you can make anything sound bad. Let's play pretend for a moment - let's say there was a bill introduced that would expand abortion rights for women. This bill ends up being pretty contentious with a razor thin majority voting in favor of it. Now 2 years down the road the abortion bill is overturned by the Supreme Court because politics have changed and now such expansions are frowned upon. Then 4 years after that we find a CEO who donated money to support this bill at the time because he strongly believed that women should have those rights. This causes an uproar in the now-majority and they demand that he be removed from his job because he supported a "murder campaign".
This scenario very closely parallels what happened with Eich, but I highly doubt anyone supporting Eich's ouster would support this hypothetical CEO being kicked. And calling Prop 8 a hate campaign is just as disingenuous and toxic to any meaningful discussion.
But he doesn't have the option to withdraw that support after the fact. What if the politics change in another 6 years and now everyone is opposed to gay marriage. Would it then be okay to hunt down people that gave money to oppose Prop 8 and make the step down/resign/quit/be fired? Going back and pursuing campaigns against individuals who opposed your views after the tide shifts in your favor is just plain vindictive. There's no justice or honor in that and it makes you out to be more bigoted and hateful than the people you were opposing in the first place.
Everyone who supported Eich's ouster should be hanging their hypocritical heads in shame.
It is unjust to harass or otherwise persecute someone for their political beliefs. By your logic it would be perfectly acceptable to run a CEO out of their job for donating to oppose Prop 8 because free speech. You can't have it both ways. This uproar is rooted in pure hatred and hypocrisy.
Oh, then you also had no problem with people being forced out of their jobs for supporting gay rights in the 80's. No? They you're a hypocrite. The worst atrocities in history have been committed by people convinced they were "morally right" - the Holocaust, the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, 9/11 - do you really want to go down that road with secular humanism as your moral basis? We all know where that road ends and it isn't pretty.
I wish you hadn't posted anon, you made a brilliant statement about everything wrong with forcing Eich out of office. Every future thread about this topic should start and end with your post.
If you read the relevant California law, donating to a PAC or similar for a ballot initiative is also protected and they cannot make hiring/firing decisions based on it.
Okay, then when the political winds change you would also consider it "free speech working" if a CEO is forced out because he supported gay marriage once 6 years prior? Because that would be the exact same thing that happened with Eich for a reversed position.
Okay, they the GLBT community members who took part in this are hypocritical bullies who are using their newfound political favor to engage in the same acts they used to condemn loudly when they were done to their members.
For what it's worth, I'd be equally pissed if Eich was "forced out" for being gay or for donating in opposition to Prop 8. That would be equally wrong to do this for those reasons.
Donating $1000 to shoot pandas or any other thing you mentioned should be your right and you should not be afraid of losing your job over making such a donation, especially 6 years after the fact.
And both are part of the political process. By your logic, everyone that voted for Prop 8 should be fired from their jobs - which would be half the state of California. Incidentally, in California it is illegal to fire someone based on their political activities. That would include donations, voting, campaigning, and other such.
Also, societal definitions of morality are shifting sand. It used to be considered "immoral" to be homosexual. The people who ran gay people out of jobs and ruined their livelihoods used your exact argument as a justification for doing so. Congratulations, you have become what you claim to despise.
It's worse than that - at the time it was the majority held view (Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote). Now, in order to hold down a job you must never hold a position that ever *becomes* the non-majority view. Doing so is apparently grounds for coerced resignation. I'm guessing next everyone that donated to support Prop 8 also deserves to be fired. I'm sick of the inherent hypocrisy in that.
You're not looking at it correctly. You have to consider voltage to get a picture of actual power contained in the device. 2ah * 5v = 10 Wh = 0.01 kWh. For convenience, we look at this in kilowatt*seconds = 36kWs. To charge in 30 seconds would therefore require an absolute minimum of 36kWs/30s = 1.2kW of power. Even with some line losses this will fall well within the output capabilities of a U.S. standard residential plug.
All NP-Complete problems reduce to each other. If memory serves, factoring is not NP-complete, but any NP-complete problem can reduce to factoring, just not the other way around. NP-hard is actually a harder set than NP-complete. Any NP-hard solution could be used to solve and NP-complete problem, but not the other way around.
One big problem with this approach is that ending characters on license plates will not be uniformly distributed. In California, for example, all non-vanity plates end in a number. In Nevada for the longest time they strictly ended with a letter. Now you have to consider that wherever Burning Man is held, the local license plate templates are going to dominate and your queues are going to clump accordingly.
I think before you can have credibility in submitting such an algorithm to them you really need to be on the ground directing traffic at the event. Then maybe you'll be able to see a solution they haven't thought of yet.
Player of Games is absolutely gripping. I think I read through it in like two days. Consider Phlebas took me well over a month off and on because...it's just such a downer really. Also in the absolutely gripping and coincidentally total Gen X/Y geekgasm fantasy literature is Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. I finished it in maybe a day and a half and could not put it down in any free moment that I had. And then I re-read it two weeks later and it had the same level of awesomeness. Really looking forward to his next book.
While I would love to see the Lensman series made into movies, it's got some major hurdles to overcome. Hollywood and steampunk so far have not gotten along (and the series is basically steampunk in space to modern sensibilities) - Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow tanked, as did Sucker Punch. Then as it is written from a 1930's - 1940's perspective it is deeply misogynistic all throughout. Women are largely window dressings except for one major character who is ignored or used as a damsel in distress as much as possible. Also deeply ironic would be all the CGI required to pull off production of it when computers are mentioned a total of once in the series, and no character is seen using them.
You'd have to break it east-west. The coastal cities tend more toward liberal/progressive ideologies, the inland counties tend more strongly toward conservatism.
The argument made by the pro-life camp is that it isn't a right. In the pro-life worldview murder is not a right, therefore abortion is not a right. In the pro-choice worldview, abortion is not murder and therefore it is the reproductive right of women to exercise that option at their discretion.
If you do not understand your opponent, there can be no meeting of the minds and thus no meaningful discussion. The true debate to be had about abortion, and the only meaningful discussion possible, is the debate over when does life and its associated rights begin. If you believe that it begins at conception then the answer is self evident in any reasonable moral system - you must not take a life without just cause. If you believe that it begins at birth then the answer is self evident again - the rights of a woman over her own body are paramount. If you take a middle stance (say, capable of living outside of the womb or similar) then you necessarily oppose abortions after that specified cutoff point.
November 3, 2008 - Telegraph article reporting on an interview on MTV. You won't find anything similar from the 2012 campaign, but it does show a turn-around in his position. The time frame is similar as CA Prop 8 was on the ballot for that year, though Obama did voice his opposition to CA Prop 8.
"If a sound wave has energy, and an equivalent wave 180 degrees out of phase also has energy, and when you combine the two you get no sound, where does the energy go?" Obviously the energy for both waves goes to regions where the two waves don't cancel.
No, no you're thinking about this wrong. It the same basic principle as what happens when two people push against each other with equal force - they both go nowhere. The energy involved in sound wave is very very low and essentially you're pushing down on the carrier medium (air molecules) at the same but directionally opposite pressure as the original sound wave. Now for high energy applications this can lead to highly interesting and destructive results (think head on car crashes, football linebackers smashing each other), but for audio cancellation it's negligible in effect. But you're right in the sense that the energy is not created or destroyed.
Now in this specific case it sounds like they're going more for a damper than an actual cancellation device (which would require ungodly amounts of energy to have an impact). That's seems a little more reasonable and potentially doable.
You know, if you want to go down that road we should examine the number of atoms in the universe (~1e80) and determine that a 1e200 solution needs to tap the multiverse for another 1e120 universes to dilute down to an effective mixture. See, physics just hasn't caught up to homeopathy yet, but the cure to all our ills is just a multiverse away!
Slashdot Mirror
Plus it's not like they had proper machining tools to craft that thing with. When it's that big across it can look well enough like a perfect circle while not at all being a perfect circle. So even at that it would well have been a 3:1 ratio with imperfections in its execution.
I came in here to say this and now that it's been said properly, I will just quietly withdraw. Though I doubt the nut job behind this movie knows enough math to be able to crunch the numbers supporting this.
If you want to call opposing gay marriage being a hate campaign then you'll also have to accept it when the other side calls pro-choice initiatives murder campaigns. Or other similarly stupid word transformations meant to coerce people to your cause.
What was done to Eich was unjust and indefensible. Everyone who had a hand in it should be ashamed of themselves.
You know, if you relabel things to suit your wishes you can make anything sound bad. Let's play pretend for a moment - let's say there was a bill introduced that would expand abortion rights for women. This bill ends up being pretty contentious with a razor thin majority voting in favor of it. Now 2 years down the road the abortion bill is overturned by the Supreme Court because politics have changed and now such expansions are frowned upon. Then 4 years after that we find a CEO who donated money to support this bill at the time because he strongly believed that women should have those rights. This causes an uproar in the now-majority and they demand that he be removed from his job because he supported a "murder campaign".
This scenario very closely parallels what happened with Eich, but I highly doubt anyone supporting Eich's ouster would support this hypothetical CEO being kicked. And calling Prop 8 a hate campaign is just as disingenuous and toxic to any meaningful discussion.
But he doesn't have the option to withdraw that support after the fact. What if the politics change in another 6 years and now everyone is opposed to gay marriage. Would it then be okay to hunt down people that gave money to oppose Prop 8 and make the step down/resign/quit/be fired? Going back and pursuing campaigns against individuals who opposed your views after the tide shifts in your favor is just plain vindictive. There's no justice or honor in that and it makes you out to be more bigoted and hateful than the people you were opposing in the first place.
Everyone who supported Eich's ouster should be hanging their hypocritical heads in shame.
It is unjust to harass or otherwise persecute someone for their political beliefs. By your logic it would be perfectly acceptable to run a CEO out of their job for donating to oppose Prop 8 because free speech. You can't have it both ways. This uproar is rooted in pure hatred and hypocrisy.
Oh, then you also had no problem with people being forced out of their jobs for supporting gay rights in the 80's. No? They you're a hypocrite. The worst atrocities in history have been committed by people convinced they were "morally right" - the Holocaust, the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, 9/11 - do you really want to go down that road with secular humanism as your moral basis? We all know where that road ends and it isn't pretty.
I wish you hadn't posted anon, you made a brilliant statement about everything wrong with forcing Eich out of office. Every future thread about this topic should start and end with your post.
If you read the relevant California law, donating to a PAC or similar for a ballot initiative is also protected and they cannot make hiring/firing decisions based on it.
Okay, then when the political winds change you would also consider it "free speech working" if a CEO is forced out because he supported gay marriage once 6 years prior? Because that would be the exact same thing that happened with Eich for a reversed position.
Okay, they the GLBT community members who took part in this are hypocritical bullies who are using their newfound political favor to engage in the same acts they used to condemn loudly when they were done to their members.
For what it's worth, I'd be equally pissed if Eich was "forced out" for being gay or for donating in opposition to Prop 8. That would be equally wrong to do this for those reasons.
Donating $1000 to shoot pandas or any other thing you mentioned should be your right and you should not be afraid of losing your job over making such a donation, especially 6 years after the fact.
And both are part of the political process. By your logic, everyone that voted for Prop 8 should be fired from their jobs - which would be half the state of California. Incidentally, in California it is illegal to fire someone based on their political activities. That would include donations, voting, campaigning, and other such.
Also, societal definitions of morality are shifting sand. It used to be considered "immoral" to be homosexual. The people who ran gay people out of jobs and ruined their livelihoods used your exact argument as a justification for doing so. Congratulations, you have become what you claim to despise.
It's worse than that - at the time it was the majority held view (Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote). Now, in order to hold down a job you must never hold a position that ever *becomes* the non-majority view. Doing so is apparently grounds for coerced resignation. I'm guessing next everyone that donated to support Prop 8 also deserves to be fired. I'm sick of the inherent hypocrisy in that.
You're not looking at it correctly. You have to consider voltage to get a picture of actual power contained in the device. 2ah * 5v = 10 Wh = 0.01 kWh. For convenience, we look at this in kilowatt*seconds = 36kWs. To charge in 30 seconds would therefore require an absolute minimum of 36kWs/30s = 1.2kW of power. Even with some line losses this will fall well within the output capabilities of a U.S. standard residential plug.
All NP-Complete problems reduce to each other. If memory serves, factoring is not NP-complete, but any NP-complete problem can reduce to factoring, just not the other way around. NP-hard is actually a harder set than NP-complete. Any NP-hard solution could be used to solve and NP-complete problem, but not the other way around.
One big problem with this approach is that ending characters on license plates will not be uniformly distributed. In California, for example, all non-vanity plates end in a number. In Nevada for the longest time they strictly ended with a letter. Now you have to consider that wherever Burning Man is held, the local license plate templates are going to dominate and your queues are going to clump accordingly.
I think before you can have credibility in submitting such an algorithm to them you really need to be on the ground directing traffic at the event. Then maybe you'll be able to see a solution they haven't thought of yet.
Player of Games is absolutely gripping. I think I read through it in like two days. Consider Phlebas took me well over a month off and on because...it's just such a downer really. Also in the absolutely gripping and coincidentally total Gen X/Y geekgasm fantasy literature is Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. I finished it in maybe a day and a half and could not put it down in any free moment that I had. And then I re-read it two weeks later and it had the same level of awesomeness. Really looking forward to his next book.
While I would love to see the Lensman series made into movies, it's got some major hurdles to overcome. Hollywood and steampunk so far have not gotten along (and the series is basically steampunk in space to modern sensibilities) - Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow tanked, as did Sucker Punch. Then as it is written from a 1930's - 1940's perspective it is deeply misogynistic all throughout. Women are largely window dressings except for one major character who is ignored or used as a damsel in distress as much as possible. Also deeply ironic would be all the CGI required to pull off production of it when computers are mentioned a total of once in the series, and no character is seen using them.
æfter ic encan ealmæst hit eald Angelcynn beon betera
Amateurs...
You'd have to break it east-west. The coastal cities tend more toward liberal/progressive ideologies, the inland counties tend more strongly toward conservatism.
The argument made by the pro-life camp is that it isn't a right. In the pro-life worldview murder is not a right, therefore abortion is not a right. In the pro-choice worldview, abortion is not murder and therefore it is the reproductive right of women to exercise that option at their discretion.
If you do not understand your opponent, there can be no meeting of the minds and thus no meaningful discussion. The true debate to be had about abortion, and the only meaningful discussion possible, is the debate over when does life and its associated rights begin. If you believe that it begins at conception then the answer is self evident in any reasonable moral system - you must not take a life without just cause. If you believe that it begins at birth then the answer is self evident again - the rights of a woman over her own body are paramount. If you take a middle stance (say, capable of living outside of the womb or similar) then you necessarily oppose abortions after that specified cutoff point.
November 3, 2008 - Telegraph article reporting on an interview on MTV. You won't find anything similar from the 2012 campaign, but it does show a turn-around in his position. The time frame is similar as CA Prop 8 was on the ballot for that year, though Obama did voice his opposition to CA Prop 8.
"If a sound wave has energy, and an equivalent wave 180 degrees out of phase also has energy, and when you combine the two you get no sound, where does the energy go?" Obviously the energy for both waves goes to regions where the two waves don't cancel.
No, no you're thinking about this wrong. It the same basic principle as what happens when two people push against each other with equal force - they both go nowhere. The energy involved in sound wave is very very low and essentially you're pushing down on the carrier medium (air molecules) at the same but directionally opposite pressure as the original sound wave. Now for high energy applications this can lead to highly interesting and destructive results (think head on car crashes, football linebackers smashing each other), but for audio cancellation it's negligible in effect. But you're right in the sense that the energy is not created or destroyed.
Now in this specific case it sounds like they're going more for a damper than an actual cancellation device (which would require ungodly amounts of energy to have an impact). That's seems a little more reasonable and potentially doable.
You know, if you want to go down that road we should examine the number of atoms in the universe (~1e80) and determine that a 1e200 solution needs to tap the multiverse for another 1e120 universes to dilute down to an effective mixture. See, physics just hasn't caught up to homeopathy yet, but the cure to all our ills is just a multiverse away!