It's not a kids book, but it's an entertaining story on many levels. Just because kids aren't sophisticated to understand all of it doesn't mean that can't enjoy it. I'm already fielding questions about death, the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, and other questions of surprising depth. They have no trouble discussing those (a disturbingly adult conversation).
But they also have potty mouths. I'd rather not hand them more ammo. Let them stick with poop and fart for a little while longer.
Remember Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie? Want to read it? Don't bother. It sucks. Well, 99% sucks. The part he got death threats for was pretty funny. But not worth reading the book for. The fatwah shouldn't have been to kill him, but I'd support kicking his as for wasting my time with such a terrible book.
I think schools are where they should leave the book unchanged. To steal a phrase: Teach the controversy.
On the other hand, it dawned on me that I would be much more comfortable reading the unedited book to myself than to read it to my preschoolers. There are just some words and phrases I don't use, much less want them mixing into their usual dialogue of boogers and farts. But it's a good enough story that maybe the edited version should get read to them at an early age. Yeah, I could skip the words myself, but they are getting to a point where they are following along.
And as an added bonus, adding a taboo is going to make kids curious. Good. I have no trouble telling my kids there is a version they can read when they get older and we can talk about. Preferably in school, but I'll happily take them to the library if they ask.
Wikipedia might be a good candidate for opt in advertising. Leave ads out by default, but give us the option of indirectly paying for usage. Who knows, opt in ads on Wikipedia might even be able to generate more revenue per view than most places.
For decades, researches would study the effect of breast implants on breast cancer. The hypothesis was the silicone or plastic increases the risk (many theories why). At the end of the study they wouldn't get results consistent with the hypothesis. Each assumed they had screwed up. Very few of them published, and the research was effectively buried over and over.
Then one researcher, having also failed to prove her hypothesis, decided to dig deeper. She dug up all the old research for a meta-analysis. Something like a dozen or 20 studies, all saying implants have no effect or reduce cancer. Aha! The net result seems to be a 30% reduction of breast cancer by having implants. Her theory is that they cause mild inflammation, which heightens the immune reaction to cancer. She even went on to make little tiny implants for rats (yes, tiny fake rat boobies), demonstrating the effect.
In this instance, the effect is so strong, that nobody in decades could ever get a statistically significant implant:cancer correlation. Just imagine what goes on with studies of much more subtle effects.
2 different universities in my academic career and I can't recall attendance ever being mandatory for lectures. But I rarely ever missed a class for two reasons: I paid for classes out of my own pocket and there was almost always homework due at the beginning and assigned at the end.
The hour I was in class was mine though. If I wanted to sleep, do homework, doodle, that was my prerogative (for one class, a friend and I would disassemble the furniture during lectures then rebuild it). Got most of my information from books like you suggest (not all). I would have brought a laptop to these optional classes if I could have afforded one. Would have been fine if it was banned.
I'm still dabbling at the other end of the spectrum: flying gliders. Cheap, "easy", and lots of fun. Homeland Security keeps proposing rules that could shut it down, but luckily the FAA has been open to rational discussions.
Keeping your glider rating is almost trivial. There are some guys in our club in their 80's and half paralyzed. And cheap too. As low at $20/hr, including tow and instructor. And there's nothing like flying 120 knots in a plane with no engine!
Dude, I only know you from you post. And don't want to know one bit more. Sadly, you come across as the biggest ass (among many christian and atheist asses posting today). So I agree, one word isn't enough to define you. Two will cover you pretty well: giant ass.
Regardless of how you see yourself, define yourself, or wish others to see you, you are making a very poor impression. By comparison, you've made the religious crowd seem to be the patient, respectful group and atheists to be hateful, arrogant, and insulting. A bit self defeating.
My guess is that you don't have to aim for a resonance. More likely the centrifuges run at the highest anti-resonance that still damps vibration below a critical threshold. A little variance in speed could send the centrifuge out of anti-resonance and reduce damping enough that bad things happen. Especially if it was done slowly.
These suckers must be able to spin up fairly quickly in order to transition through resonance points before they can self destruct.
One of the things that brought my wife and I together was gaming. And you're dead on about sitting together playing a game. It becomes a shared bonding experience instead of a related experience.
We also figured out pretty quickly that anything other than co-op could lead to a wee bit o' disagreement. Plus something about playing co-op has more parallels in marriage: we have to mutually decide on goals, learn how to not to get too pissed when the other makes a mistake, and so on. Call it practice and experience at conflict resolution for when it really matters.
The US left Saudi Arabia 7 years ago We also don't have bases in Pakistan, India, or Iran. Three countries with a lot of suicide bombing. How about Russia, Sri Lanka, oh, and Sweden?
There are two basic ways to look at the origin of government power in any society. The first system is all power and rights originate with the government, which in turn grants rights and power to people. France is explicitly organized this way. The second system is that all power and rights originate with the people, which in turn grant powers to the government. The US is explicitly organized this way.
This leads to two very different ways of defining which right people have. The first must list what people can have (e.g. a right to healthcare). The second leads to what government can do (e.g. the US Constitution).
The US also has what is called a Bill of Rights, which was considered redundant by the writers of the Constitution, but is very explicit in the limitations of government power. Americans tend to think of these when they think of rights. But we also have rights to everything not listed in the Constitution, including healthcare.
Because the first system is a list of what government says people can have, people hold their governments accountable to deliver on the list. Healthcare as a right and delivered by the government seems natural
Because the second system is a list of what government can do, people expect government to limit itself to that list. Granting an new government power over a personal thing like healthcare seems alien to people in this system. The side effect of having 100% right of personal control over healthcare is that it comes with 100% responsibility (such as paying for it).
Summarizing things in the context of your comment: Americans have access to healthcare as a right, because the government has no right to prevent us from getting it. But we cannot force another American to give it to us. Same as a million other activities.
Here's a great way to interpret the US Constitution, rights, and why it takes so long to gets stuff like universal healthcare sorted out: It's a contract between people on how to govern themselves (what rights to give up). If it's not in the contract, it's not in the domain of government. And if you want to change the contract, everybody has to agree. That's going to be a battle.
Could your indecision stems from wanting at least a little control of your work for at least a little while? Not absolute control for eternity?
Well, that was what copyright was supposed to be: control for a limited time. Your gut instinct jives with what it was supposed to be. You get first crack at trying to commercialize your effort (or give it away), then after a few years anyone who could figure out how to use it was free to make a go of it.
Same for someone who dumps money into writing a book, coming up with a drug, and so on. Even if it's a company, it seems fair they should get a chance to profit from their effort or buying your rights to your works.
But for a limited time! That's probably what bothers the heck out of you.
At least patents for drugs are less than a generation. And if it weren't for the huge profits to be made from the drugs, nobody would be able to buy most new drugs at any price ever, much less be able to buy them cheap several years later. Patents are a Faustian deal, but most people don't realize it's patent holders that are Faust. Time moves on and we get the soul.
Ah, I see it is 3PM. Thus my ramble ends abruptly and I'm going home.
2 things might still bite Wikileaks. IANAL, but these two seem pretty obvious.
Inducement. Did Wikileaks receive the leak unprompted, or did they encourage someone to violate their oath? Unknown since Wikileaks hasn't been very forthcoming in how they got the information. Depending on what was discussed, conspiracy might raise it's ugly head.
"Trafficking" In quotes because there are several categories that could be argued. If there is no direct link between what Wikileaks publishes and income, then they should be safe. Advertising and undirected donations should be safe. But if there is any evidence of enrichment direct attributable to releasing documents (quid pro quo), that could be fencing stolen information. "Give us money so we can publish the really juicy stuff we didn't last week", could bite them in the ass.
To keep the mantle of just a publisher, they have to also remain independent. Bias is fine, but they have to take care to remain strictly independent of the source and the destination.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a kids book, but it's an entertaining story on many levels. Just because kids aren't sophisticated to understand all of it doesn't mean that can't enjoy it. I'm already fielding questions about death, the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, and other questions of surprising depth. They have no trouble discussing those (a disturbingly adult conversation).
But they also have potty mouths. I'd rather not hand them more ammo. Let them stick with poop and fart for a little while longer.
Remember Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie? Want to read it? Don't bother. It sucks. Well, 99% sucks. The part he got death threats for was pretty funny. But not worth reading the book for. The fatwah shouldn't have been to kill him, but I'd support kicking his as for wasting my time with such a terrible book.
Don't joke. Some folks would probably be more than happy to remove Jim entirely from the book and slap that sticker on.
I think schools are where they should leave the book unchanged. To steal a phrase: Teach the controversy.
On the other hand, it dawned on me that I would be much more comfortable reading the unedited book to myself than to read it to my preschoolers. There are just some words and phrases I don't use, much less want them mixing into their usual dialogue of boogers and farts. But it's a good enough story that maybe the edited version should get read to them at an early age. Yeah, I could skip the words myself, but they are getting to a point where they are following along.
And as an added bonus, adding a taboo is going to make kids curious. Good. I have no trouble telling my kids there is a version they can read when they get older and we can talk about. Preferably in school, but I'll happily take them to the library if they ask.
It's just an opinion, and fluid at that.
They had to change a few features and re-brand it to avoid confusing it with the full version, but you can already download it:
http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html
Wikipedia might be a good candidate for opt in advertising. Leave ads out by default, but give us the option of indirectly paying for usage. Who knows, opt in ads on Wikipedia might even be able to generate more revenue per view than most places.
Here's an example of what you describe:
For decades, researches would study the effect of breast implants on breast cancer. The hypothesis was the silicone or plastic increases the risk (many theories why). At the end of the study they wouldn't get results consistent with the hypothesis. Each assumed they had screwed up. Very few of them published, and the research was effectively buried over and over.
Then one researcher, having also failed to prove her hypothesis, decided to dig deeper. She dug up all the old research for a meta-analysis. Something like a dozen or 20 studies, all saying implants have no effect or reduce cancer. Aha! The net result seems to be a 30% reduction of breast cancer by having implants. Her theory is that they cause mild inflammation, which heightens the immune reaction to cancer. She even went on to make little tiny implants for rats (yes, tiny fake rat boobies), demonstrating the effect.
In this instance, the effect is so strong, that nobody in decades could ever get a statistically significant implant:cancer correlation. Just imagine what goes on with studies of much more subtle effects.
So that must mean you're the real Anonymous Coward?
2 different universities in my academic career and I can't recall attendance ever being mandatory for lectures. But I rarely ever missed a class for two reasons: I paid for classes out of my own pocket and there was almost always homework due at the beginning and assigned at the end.
The hour I was in class was mine though. If I wanted to sleep, do homework, doodle, that was my prerogative (for one class, a friend and I would disassemble the furniture during lectures then rebuild it). Got most of my information from books like you suggest (not all). I would have brought a laptop to these optional classes if I could have afforded one. Would have been fine if it was banned.
These are meant to show you are fashionably green when you go out clubbing. The only bright light they will ever see is from strobes.
And only pay $0.10/kWhr.
(Or work and pay 0.)
And buy pants that don't suck.
I'm still dabbling at the other end of the spectrum: flying gliders. Cheap, "easy", and lots of fun. Homeland Security keeps proposing rules that could shut it down, but luckily the FAA has been open to rational discussions.
Keeping your glider rating is almost trivial. There are some guys in our club in their 80's and half paralyzed. And cheap too. As low at $20/hr, including tow and instructor. And there's nothing like flying 120 knots in a plane with no engine!
Dude, I only know you from you post. And don't want to know one bit more. Sadly, you come across as the biggest ass (among many christian and atheist asses posting today). So I agree, one word isn't enough to define you. Two will cover you pretty well: giant ass.
Regardless of how you see yourself, define yourself, or wish others to see you, you are making a very poor impression. By comparison, you've made the religious crowd seem to be the patient, respectful group and atheists to be hateful, arrogant, and insulting. A bit self defeating.
CFLs and LEDs are about the same (unless you want to use only green LEDs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2
My guess is that you don't have to aim for a resonance. More likely the centrifuges run at the highest anti-resonance that still damps vibration below a critical threshold. A little variance in speed could send the centrifuge out of anti-resonance and reduce damping enough that bad things happen. Especially if it was done slowly.
These suckers must be able to spin up fairly quickly in order to transition through resonance points before they can self destruct.
Is there a mp3.pendinglist.ca yet?
Your assumption is wrong: http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html
One of the things that brought my wife and I together was gaming. And you're dead on about sitting together playing a game. It becomes a shared bonding experience instead of a related experience.
We also figured out pretty quickly that anything other than co-op could lead to a wee bit o' disagreement. Plus something about playing co-op has more parallels in marriage: we have to mutually decide on goals, learn how to not to get too pissed when the other makes a mistake, and so on. Call it practice and experience at conflict resolution for when it really matters.
The US left Saudi Arabia 7 years ago
We also don't have bases in Pakistan, India, or Iran. Three countries with a lot of suicide bombing. How about Russia, Sri Lanka, oh, and Sweden?
No, it's more like this:
Emperor A got depantsed. Emperors B,C,SoA, and SaA propose standardizing pants to prevent depantsing.
There are two basic ways to look at the origin of government power in any society. The first system is all power and rights originate with the government, which in turn grants rights and power to people. France is explicitly organized this way. The second system is that all power and rights originate with the people, which in turn grant powers to the government. The US is explicitly organized this way.
This leads to two very different ways of defining which right people have. The first must list what people can have (e.g. a right to healthcare). The second leads to what government can do (e.g. the US Constitution).
The US also has what is called a Bill of Rights, which was considered redundant by the writers of the Constitution, but is very explicit in the limitations of government power. Americans tend to think of these when they think of rights. But we also have rights to everything not listed in the Constitution, including healthcare.
Because the first system is a list of what government says people can have, people hold their governments accountable to deliver on the list. Healthcare as a right and delivered by the government seems natural
Because the second system is a list of what government can do, people expect government to limit itself to that list. Granting an new government power over a personal thing like healthcare seems alien to people in this system. The side effect of having 100% right of personal control over healthcare is that it comes with 100% responsibility (such as paying for it).
Summarizing things in the context of your comment: Americans have access to healthcare as a right, because the government has no right to prevent us from getting it. But we cannot force another American to give it to us. Same as a million other activities.
Here's a great way to interpret the US Constitution, rights, and why it takes so long to gets stuff like universal healthcare sorted out: It's a contract between people on how to govern themselves (what rights to give up). If it's not in the contract, it's not in the domain of government. And if you want to change the contract, everybody has to agree. That's going to be a battle.
Hasn't anyone called Technora yet? Space Debris Section should have been tasked to retrieve Galaxy 15 long ago.
Could your indecision stems from wanting at least a little control of your work for at least a little while? Not absolute control for eternity?
Well, that was what copyright was supposed to be: control for a limited time. Your gut instinct jives with what it was supposed to be. You get first crack at trying to commercialize your effort (or give it away), then after a few years anyone who could figure out how to use it was free to make a go of it.
Same for someone who dumps money into writing a book, coming up with a drug, and so on. Even if it's a company, it seems fair they should get a chance to profit from their effort or buying your rights to your works.
But for a limited time! That's probably what bothers the heck out of you.
At least patents for drugs are less than a generation. And if it weren't for the huge profits to be made from the drugs, nobody would be able to buy most new drugs at any price ever, much less be able to buy them cheap several years later. Patents are a Faustian deal, but most people don't realize it's patent holders that are Faust. Time moves on and we get the soul.
Ah, I see it is 3PM. Thus my ramble ends abruptly and I'm going home.
2 things might still bite Wikileaks. IANAL, but these two seem pretty obvious.
Inducement. Did Wikileaks receive the leak unprompted, or did they encourage someone to violate their oath? Unknown since Wikileaks hasn't been very forthcoming in how they got the information. Depending on what was discussed, conspiracy might raise it's ugly head.
"Trafficking" In quotes because there are several categories that could be argued. If there is no direct link between what Wikileaks publishes and income, then they should be safe. Advertising and undirected donations should be safe. But if there is any evidence of enrichment direct attributable to releasing documents (quid pro quo), that could be fencing stolen information. "Give us money so we can publish the really juicy stuff we didn't last week", could bite them in the ass.
To keep the mantle of just a publisher, they have to also remain independent. Bias is fine, but they have to take care to remain strictly independent of the source and the destination.
It's also the method that Archimedes used (except he used sheets of metal).