...so I am not a passive listener. There is no such thing as "background music" for me. I can either listen to music or concentrate on the task at hand. I supposed it could be considered a curse (like perfect pitch, which I do not have, thank gods), but I cannot imagine life any other way.
By increasing the size of the IPO, they are offering closer to 15% of the shares, rather than 10%.
At a price of $34/share, the market cap will be north of $120 billion, and the price on Day 1 could spike much higher than that, when all the rubes jump into the secondary market.
Facebook may never again have a market capitalization greater than it will on its first day of trading.
Quoting the article that you cite, "Researcher Soraya Mehdizadeh from York University in Canada asked 100 students, 50 male and 50 female, aged between 18 and 25 about their Facebook habits."
Clearly, that is not a representative sample of 900 million people. Your unwarranted generalization is rejected.
Woz knows that making some controversial statements from time to time keeps him from falling into obscurity. He doesn't seriously expect that Apple will follow his advice.
So, if you have a phone plan that includes unlimited text messages, but don't use them as much now, wouldn't that be ADDING to the teleco's revenue?
No. Revenue is the same, whether you use the service or not. If customers are not using an unlimited service that is included in their plans, it reduces the provider's costs (very slightly), which might improve earnings, but would not increase (or decrease) revenue.
It sounds overreaching to call this "evolution" if the researchers are selecting...
Artificial selection and natural selection are equally valid ways of inducing evolution. Without some selection process, it's just random variation, with no trend.
It's not about knowing which answers are accurate--it's about passing the test. Perceptive students learn very quickly how to provide the answers that are required, regardless of whether they are technically true or not. There is new about that--I learned it 40 years ago and scored much higher on standardized tests than I really deserved. It is utterly naïve to cast that in terms of recent politics.
...there is no statutory bar from the Census Bureau furnishing its data to Law Enforcement, the census clearly violates the 5th Amendment, and you cannot be compelled to participate.
Sorry, but you're clearly wrong on all three points.
My brother helped develop a pinhole scintillation camera in conjunction with Bendix in Ann Arbor in 1971. First application was thyroid imaging. Exposure times were rather long. They were also working on tomography software... on a PDP-11.
On the contrary, one of the reasons this reform never gets off the ground in the US is that it is not a strong partisan issue, even for the fringe element. It's hard to get your constituents--on either side--fired up over something so mundane, so it doesn't give you any advantage over the Other Party.
This has been answered in another comment but, for convenience, I'll repeat: Under the International Convention On Salvage, 1989,
Property means any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and includes freight at risk.
Based on what I have read, the 1989 convention covers more kinds of property than than previous maritime law, which mostly dealt with vessels and their cargo. In light of that, and therefore pertinent to your question, it has been a principle of maritime law since ancient times that goods thrown overboard remain the property of the owner and do not become the property of anyone finding them, because they cannot be considered as abandoned. In the contemplation of the law, goods that are jettisoned are regarded as being only temporarily sent out of the ship.
If they are in international waters aren't they subject to maritime salvage law? How can they be the property of NASA, if they knew where they were and never retrieved them, why would they still belong to NASA is raised?
Because that's what international maritime salvage law actually says. Someone who salvages your property can claim a reward for recovering your property and establish a lien on it in order to get the reward, but neither the recovery nor the lien makes the property theirs.
Edison was no scientist, he wasn't even an engineer. Edison was a technologist and inventor. His lab was all about generating patents, not discoveries, and a great number of his devices were improvements on prior art.
I disagree with the notion that "science is a non-renewable resource". First, science is a process and not a resource but, more to the point, it seems to imply that knowledge itself is a finite resource, which may or may not be true. It is not at all obvious that we've passed the point of "peak science" (a la "peak oil") or, to stretch the metaphor further, that we have any idea how much we have in "undiscovered reserves". Throughout human history, we have underestimated the vastness of what we don't know and there is no reason to believe that we do not continue to do so, today.
Many of the technologies of the 20th century were based on theories and discoveries made in the 19th. We may not realize the full significance of some of the discoveries that have been made in the last 50 years. It is quite possible that more recent discoveries, by nature of their subtlety, not lend themselves to gadgets so much as we saw in the 20th century, but they may turn out to be no less significant in retrospect.
Startups do not do basic research--that's not their purpose. Venture capitalists do not want to hear basic research proposals, because they are interested in funding enterprises that will be profitable within their own lifetimes. Even so, I do hope they find some that are more worthwhile than "throwing sheep".
Slashdot Mirror
TFA was written by Todd Bishop, one of the founders of GeekWire. Apparently, he thought it was all perfectly scandalous. He must not get out much.
If he has any connection to the Brownists, it would be at least ten generations back.
Indeed. Stupidity is bottomless. You can get dizzy gazing into it.
...so I am not a passive listener. There is no such thing as "background music" for me. I can either listen to music or concentrate on the task at hand. I supposed it could be considered a curse (like perfect pitch, which I do not have, thank gods), but I cannot imagine life any other way.
By increasing the size of the IPO, they are offering closer to 15% of the shares, rather than 10%.
At a price of $34/share, the market cap will be north of $120 billion, and the price on Day 1 could spike much higher than that, when all the rubes jump into the secondary market.
Facebook may never again have a market capitalization greater than it will on its first day of trading.
Quoting the article that you cite, "Researcher Soraya Mehdizadeh from York University in Canada asked 100 students, 50 male and 50 female, aged between 18 and 25 about their Facebook habits."
Clearly, that is not a representative sample of 900 million people. Your unwarranted generalization is rejected.
who makes up the board?
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/bod.aspx
Woz knows that making some controversial statements from time to time keeps him from falling into obscurity. He doesn't seriously expect that Apple will follow his advice.
What Universe is this tool living in?
Scott Hanselman is a principal program manager at Microsoft. (I am not joking.)
So, if you have a phone plan that includes unlimited text messages, but don't use them as much now, wouldn't that be ADDING to the teleco's revenue?
No. Revenue is the same, whether you use the service or not. If customers are not using an unlimited service that is included in their plans, it reduces the provider's costs (very slightly), which might improve earnings, but would not increase (or decrease) revenue.
...if they wanted to run a kindergarten, they should have gone into that field.
Case in point: moderation, karma points, meta-moderation, friends, fans, freaks and foes. Gamification of an otherwise dry forum.
The strategic or tactical value of a target may have little to do with its economic value.
There is a way. But a law of war is that you should not use weapons that cost more than what you destroy with them.
That's not really a law, it's more of a guideline.
But... but... which day did God create that one again?
The fifth day. "Read your damn Bible."
Does Amazon have operations on the ground in Texas?
Yes, they do.
Also, California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, of course. That's as of four years ago. Probably more, now.
It sounds overreaching to call this "evolution" if the researchers are selecting...
Artificial selection and natural selection are equally valid ways of inducing evolution. Without some selection process, it's just random variation, with no trend.
Since extreme waves were not the subject of their expedition, they had not read all the prior literature.
Yes, but intelligent students can easily game that system.
It's not about knowing which answers are accurate--it's about passing the test. Perceptive students learn very quickly how to provide the answers that are required, regardless of whether they are technically true or not. There is new about that--I learned it 40 years ago and scored much higher on standardized tests than I really deserved. It is utterly naïve to cast that in terms of recent politics.
...there is no statutory bar from the Census Bureau furnishing its data to Law Enforcement, the census clearly violates the 5th Amendment, and you cannot be compelled to participate.
Sorry, but you're clearly wrong on all three points.
Posting anonymously was a good idea, though.
My brother helped develop a pinhole scintillation camera in conjunction with Bendix in Ann Arbor in 1971. First application was thyroid imaging. Exposure times were rather long. They were also working on tomography software... on a PDP-11.
On the contrary, one of the reasons this reform never gets off the ground in the US is that it is not a strong partisan issue, even for the fringe element. It's hard to get your constituents--on either side--fired up over something so mundane, so it doesn't give you any advantage over the Other Party.
Not really. This is a reverse fuel cell. Liquid fuels have higher energy density than batteries.
ARPA-E has funded a whole bunch of these electrofuels projects.
Here's one at Harvard, using a different species of bacteria: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/Electrofuels/EngineeringaBacterialReverseFuelCell.aspx
And yet another one at Columbia: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/Electrofuels/BiofuelsfromCO2UsingAmmoniaOxidizingBacteria.aspx
This has been answered in another comment but, for convenience, I'll repeat: Under the International Convention On Salvage, 1989,
Property means any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and includes freight at risk.
Based on what I have read, the 1989 convention covers more kinds of property than than previous maritime law, which mostly dealt with vessels and their cargo. In light of that, and therefore pertinent to your question, it has been a principle of maritime law since ancient times that goods thrown overboard remain the property of the owner and do not become the property of anyone finding them, because they cannot be considered as abandoned. In the contemplation of the law, goods that are jettisoned are regarded as being only temporarily sent out of the ship.
If they are in international waters aren't they subject to maritime salvage law? How can they be the property of NASA, if they knew where they were and never retrieved them, why would they still belong to NASA is raised?
Because that's what international maritime salvage law actually says. Someone who salvages your property can claim a reward for recovering your property and establish a lien on it in order to get the reward, but neither the recovery nor the lien makes the property theirs.
You're confusing science with technology.
Edison was no scientist, he wasn't even an engineer. Edison was a technologist and inventor. His lab was all about generating patents, not discoveries, and a great number of his devices were improvements on prior art.
I disagree with the notion that "science is a non-renewable resource". First, science is a process and not a resource but, more to the point, it seems to imply that knowledge itself is a finite resource, which may or may not be true. It is not at all obvious that we've passed the point of "peak science" (a la "peak oil") or, to stretch the metaphor further, that we have any idea how much we have in "undiscovered reserves". Throughout human history, we have underestimated the vastness of what we don't know and there is no reason to believe that we do not continue to do so, today.
Many of the technologies of the 20th century were based on theories and discoveries made in the 19th. We may not realize the full significance of some of the discoveries that have been made in the last 50 years. It is quite possible that more recent discoveries, by nature of their subtlety, not lend themselves to gadgets so much as we saw in the 20th century, but they may turn out to be no less significant in retrospect.
Startups do not do basic research--that's not their purpose. Venture capitalists do not want to hear basic research proposals, because they are interested in funding enterprises that will be profitable within their own lifetimes. Even so, I do hope they find some that are more worthwhile than "throwing sheep".