Define "left-handed" or "right-handed". You can't come up with an unambiguous definition of either.
The only real definition we have is that "right" is the handedness of the majority of the human population. If the whole population was actually "left" handed as we now understand it, they would be right handed.
The short version of this post is, if you ever meet a perfect version of yourself constructed by aliens from radio transmissions, don't shake their hand.
They seem to have cleaned out the comment though. I remember looking at the story 2 days ago and seeing over 400 comments -- virtually all about how hot Ms. Fearing is. Now there are only 96. Still all about how hot Ms. Fearing is.
Personally, I think the whole open source gig is fading away. The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.
In their world, code is something that is packaged into an app, approved by Apple, and then sold for profit. It is not something which can even be freely compiled and run on their devices, let alone shared and co-written.
Ultimately computers and the Internet are growing up, moving out into suburbia, and accepting pre-packaged convenience over creative potential. People want shiny and slick, and really couldn't care less freedom, code, control, or innovation. There's probably an App for feelings like that anyway.
The Internet is becoming squaresville, one settled Mac user at a time.
Warren Buffett, the world's most famous investor, published that in 2003. It was widely reported. No one can say the fraud was unknown,
What is the use of a crime being known if it is not punished. In fact, if an unpunished crime becomes widely known, its occurrence is likely to increase as more and more rogues rush to the opportunity.
First of all, quantum effects like this don't allow the passage of information
Did you read the summary? Alice and Bob found a higher degree of correlation between their measurements if Victor chooses to entangle his photons. By firing enough photons, Alice and Bob can accurately guess beforehand what Victor is doing(and going to do apparently). You can transmit a message--indeed any message--using this if it is true. Information theory 101.
(no quantum entanglement effect does, it would violate relativity)
Quantum mechanics and relativity have nothing to do with one another--that's the whole problem. They violate the others rules by definition in most cases.
This process can be sped up immensely by simply having universities or their libraries publish their own journals. There is really no excuse for not doing this, and little excuse for the minimal costs to be borne by either the library itself or the relevant department.
The costs of hosting an academic journal online are by now practically non-existent, and will disappear entirely once some standard journal management open source software is developed and included in main repositories. The cost of actually printing journals probably pales in comparision to the present print budget of most universities anyway.
I'm aware of at least one journal which is printed in this way. While not the most famous of publications, there's nothing wrong with the model whatsoever.
I don't know about US-ians, but I'm typically able to just send an email off to my elected Irish representatives and I'm pretty sure they actually read it as I have actually received personally written replies back from the representatives in question. This includes senior Ministers. And no, I haven't sent off that many emails. I might average one every two months or so.
By the way, I've also had occasion over the years to send email to two MPs in the UK. One responded personally, and the other was responded to by someone in their office(and no, it wasn't by automated script).
Basically, my impression from Ireland and the UK is that elected parliamentarians do in fact read their emails, or at the very least they are read by their staff. I'm not sure what else you can reasonably expect.
I don't know how the US works, but I would be surprised if State legislators at least weren't similar. Then again, the political lobbying industry in the US might have different ideas.
"It seems counter-intuitive but a RAND full lifecycle analysis (PDF) shows that reading news electronically produces fewer GHG emissions than reading news on paper:
It's more likely that the changing attitudes of society are at play here. Note the spikes in 2002--a year after Sep 11th and the response to it, and then again in 2006, during the final splurge of the financial boom.
As they witnessed the ethics and morals of society erode about them, I imagine quite a few scientists just said "screw ethics" and went for their own slice of the rotten pie.
As such, I would expect to see an explosion of scientific fraud in 2011/12.
Science should NOT be corporate-funded, it should be grant-funded
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with corporate funding of science, and in particular there is nothing wrong with respectable private labs.
Sometimes corporations want to develop a new material, product, method or whatever, and it requires some serious scientific investigation to get it done right. In this case, corporate funding of science is in everyone's benefit, particularly if the research is published, or to a lesser extent patented.
This used to be a very successful model before corporations started skimping on R&D, and really before all scientific industries were outsourced elsewhere.
Market bubbles happen when something takes on an unreasonable value and continues to grow, people see that it grows and jump on, causing further growth
And how do they "jump on"? Where to they get the cash to buy into the rising asset? They get it from banks. They borrow, they refinance, they rollover, but ultimately they get the money from a bank loan(Unless they happen to have money "saved"--how quaint)
Bubbles cannot happen with at least one, if not several, banks backing the entire process from start, to finish, to aftermath. Mark Zuckerberg has little to do with it.
Eh, no. Bubbles being when financiers get access to lots of money.
The troubles of our present day have everything to do with the decisions of financiers and bankers, and almost nothing to do with anyone else. Zuckerberg might have a lot of money, but his ability to cause a bubble in anything pales in comparision to that of even a small bank or hedge fund.
The real problem in business is in fact CEOs, other executive managers, and the methods that are being used to select them. CEOs have devolved into grossly overpaid playboys with no responsibilities towards shareholders, customers, or indeed the company itself.
We are witnessing not just companies, but entire industries collapse before our eyes. Multinational firms, once immensely profitable, are being driven into stagnation, decline, and ultimately bankruptcy with each passing year. Excuses such as "globalisation", foreign competitors, and "government" are always trotted out, but no-one every really asks serious questions about the management of these companies, or why they spent increasingly large amounts on executive remuneration even as became less profitable.
Studies suggest that one of the defining characteristics being used by boards to select CEOs in in fact height--Yes, how "tall" someone is. I imagine other factors such as hairstyle, teeth, and charm are being applied as well because I see no other reason for the modern day plague of vapid and incompetent CEOs, and the associated layers of equally useless senior managers.
The problem is not restricted to management either. Boards too seem to have become saturated with unqualified socialites, often from unrelated industries or even unrelated fields like academia, selected for personal or political connections rather than for any actually relevant competencies.
But ultimately, I place the blame on shareholders and investors. They are the ones who ultimately approve the appointment of the unqualified, unsuitable, unethical, and incompetent CEOs currently wrecking companies left and right. If their definition of "business savvy" means knowing which designer suits to wear and looking good at press conferences, then they deserve to lose their money and the company deserves to fail.
Any competent CIOs and other such employees should not waste their lives in unprofitable asylums, instead should busy themselves setting up their own company which they can then run like an actual business instead of a office pantomime.
Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR. Yes, passengers were injured, but TFA notes that the seatbelt light was on.
Saying that "the only purpose of an NDA is to sue me falsely later" as others have said in these threads is no different than saying that "the only purpose of ANY CONTRACT is to sue me falsely"
Why is this necessarily wrong?
and so flat our refuse to ever sign anything ever,
And why is this necessarily an unsound principle?
In particular, why should either be so in the case of an ordinary individual, unincorporated and subject to unlimited liability, dealing with corporate entities and their legal departments? Why should David sign anything Goliath asks him too?
John Forever Alone Larson can stomp his feet all he wants, but he's clueless.
Not like big smart you and your ever growing mountain of potential liabilities, whether from your employees' abuse of their "transitivity", or just by an unscrupulous competitor seeking to take you out.
We were going to submit the nazis totally and absolutely and a part of that was the 1200 calories a day we allowed them. It's hard to maintain your fighting spirit and think of maintaining the ole Sig Heil when you're living amongst rubble and so mal-nourished and hungry you can barely stand....... Little Boy and Fat Man had the same effect on Imperial Japan. It wasn't about winning the war, it was about the psychological conversion of the population through REAL shock and awe, a total and absolute devastation and final full on shit-fuck invalidation of the poisoned government that population had permitted to arise.
Then why didn't your benevolent "shit-fucking" work in Russia during the 1990s, or in Vietnam in the 1960s? Could it be because in the cases of Germany and Japan, the allies (eventually) offered an alternative way of life under democracy to their defeated opponents? That the US actually engaged in real nation rebuilding at that time and effectively created two of the most successful post war countries as a result? A pity no such long term planning has been applied or indeed even contemplated in either modern Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bombs and tanks wont he battles, but it was the Marshall Plan won the war, and the subsequent Cold war besides. The US and her allies in the present have created no such legacy, for all their costly foreign expeditions.
Slashdot Mirror
The odds of such an event are... [sunglasses]....Astronomical.
Define "left-handed" or "right-handed". You can't come up with an unambiguous definition of either.
The only real definition we have is that "right" is the handedness of the majority of the human population. If the whole population was actually "left" handed as we now understand it, they would be right handed.
The short version of this post is, if you ever meet a perfect version of yourself constructed by aliens from radio transmissions, don't shake their hand.
The Internet: Vindicating misanthropy since 1993.
Personally, I think the whole open source gig is fading away. The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.
In their world, code is something that is packaged into an app, approved by Apple, and then sold for profit. It is not something which can even be freely compiled and run on their devices, let alone shared and co-written.
Ultimately computers and the Internet are growing up, moving out into suburbia, and accepting pre-packaged convenience over creative potential. People want shiny and slick, and really couldn't care less freedom, code, control, or innovation. There's probably an App for feelings like that anyway.
The Internet is becoming squaresville, one settled Mac user at a time.
What is the use of a crime being known if it is not punished. In fact, if an unpunished crime becomes widely known, its occurrence is likely to increase as more and more rogues rush to the opportunity.
There probably is.
You don't actually have any children, do you?
Someone is obviously too young to remember Columbine.
Did you read the summary? Alice and Bob found a higher degree of correlation between their measurements if Victor chooses to entangle his photons. By firing enough photons, Alice and Bob can accurately guess beforehand what Victor is doing(and going to do apparently). You can transmit a message--indeed any message--using this if it is true. Information theory 101.
Quantum mechanics and relativity have nothing to do with one another--that's the whole problem. They violate the others rules by definition in most cases.
This process can be sped up immensely by simply having universities or their libraries publish their own journals. There is really no excuse for not doing this, and little excuse for the minimal costs to be borne by either the library itself or the relevant department.
The costs of hosting an academic journal online are by now practically non-existent, and will disappear entirely once some standard journal management open source software is developed and included in main repositories. The cost of actually printing journals probably pales in comparision to the present print budget of most universities anyway.
I'm aware of at least one journal which is printed in this way. While not the most famous of publications, there's nothing wrong with the model whatsoever.
It's also worth noting that consoles are a LOT easier to use, despite all the iGUI innovations in recent years.
Whereas my cynical side would be puzzled and even shocked to discover that it wasn't done by unregulated and unaccountable private contractors.
I don't know about US-ians, but I'm typically able to just send an email off to my elected Irish representatives and I'm pretty sure they actually read it as I have actually received personally written replies back from the representatives in question. This includes senior Ministers. And no, I haven't sent off that many emails. I might average one every two months or so.
By the way, I've also had occasion over the years to send email to two MPs in the UK. One responded personally, and the other was responded to by someone in their office(and no, it wasn't by automated script).
Basically, my impression from Ireland and the UK is that elected parliamentarians do in fact read their emails, or at the very least they are read by their staff. I'm not sure what else you can reasonably expect.
I don't know how the US works, but I would be surprised if State legislators at least weren't similar. Then again, the political lobbying industry in the US might have different ideas.
How is this in any way counter-intuitive?
It's more likely that the changing attitudes of society are at play here. Note the spikes in 2002--a year after Sep 11th and the response to it, and then again in 2006, during the final splurge of the financial boom.
As they witnessed the ethics and morals of society erode about them, I imagine quite a few scientists just said "screw ethics" and went for their own slice of the rotten pie.
As such, I would expect to see an explosion of scientific fraud in 2011/12.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with corporate funding of science, and in particular there is nothing wrong with respectable private labs.
Sometimes corporations want to develop a new material, product, method or whatever, and it requires some serious scientific investigation to get it done right. In this case, corporate funding of science is in everyone's benefit, particularly if the research is published, or to a lesser extent patented.
This used to be a very successful model before corporations started skimping on R&D, and really before all scientific industries were outsourced elsewhere.
I can't say your posterior would thank you for it though.
And how do they "jump on"? Where to they get the cash to buy into the rising asset? They get it from banks. They borrow, they refinance, they rollover, but ultimately they get the money from a bank loan(Unless they happen to have money "saved"--how quaint)
Bubbles cannot happen with at least one, if not several, banks backing the entire process from start, to finish, to aftermath. Mark Zuckerberg has little to do with it.
Eh, no. Bubbles being when financiers get access to lots of money.
The troubles of our present day have everything to do with the decisions of financiers and bankers, and almost nothing to do with anyone else. Zuckerberg might have a lot of money, but his ability to cause a bubble in anything pales in comparision to that of even a small bank or hedge fund.
The real problem in business is in fact CEOs, other executive managers, and the methods that are being used to select them. CEOs have devolved into grossly overpaid playboys with no responsibilities towards shareholders, customers, or indeed the company itself.
We are witnessing not just companies, but entire industries collapse before our eyes. Multinational firms, once immensely profitable, are being driven into stagnation, decline, and ultimately bankruptcy with each passing year. Excuses such as "globalisation", foreign competitors, and "government" are always trotted out, but no-one every really asks serious questions about the management of these companies, or why they spent increasingly large amounts on executive remuneration even as became less profitable.
Studies suggest that one of the defining characteristics being used by boards to select CEOs in in fact height--Yes, how "tall" someone is. I imagine other factors such as hairstyle, teeth, and charm are being applied as well because I see no other reason for the modern day plague of vapid and incompetent CEOs, and the associated layers of equally useless senior managers.
The problem is not restricted to management either. Boards too seem to have become saturated with unqualified socialites, often from unrelated industries or even unrelated fields like academia, selected for personal or political connections rather than for any actually relevant competencies.
But ultimately, I place the blame on shareholders and investors. They are the ones who ultimately approve the appointment of the unqualified, unsuitable, unethical, and incompetent CEOs currently wrecking companies left and right. If their definition of "business savvy" means knowing which designer suits to wear and looking good at press conferences, then they deserve to lose their money and the company deserves to fail.
Any competent CIOs and other such employees should not waste their lives in unprofitable asylums, instead should busy themselves setting up their own company which they can then run like an actual business instead of a office pantomime.
Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR. Yes, passengers were injured, but TFA notes that the seatbelt light was on.
Why is this necessarily wrong?
And why is this necessarily an unsound principle?
In particular, why should either be so in the case of an ordinary individual, unincorporated and subject to unlimited liability, dealing with corporate entities and their legal departments? Why should David sign anything Goliath asks him too?
Not like big smart you and your ever growing mountain of potential liabilities, whether from your employees' abuse of their "transitivity", or just by an unscrupulous competitor seeking to take you out.
Well, this D does translate to a Aaa* in financial terms, which is practically junk status.
Then why didn't your benevolent "shit-fucking" work in Russia during the 1990s, or in Vietnam in the 1960s? Could it be because in the cases of Germany and Japan, the allies (eventually) offered an alternative way of life under democracy to their defeated opponents? That the US actually engaged in real nation rebuilding at that time and effectively created two of the most successful post war countries as a result? A pity no such long term planning has been applied or indeed even contemplated in either modern Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bombs and tanks wont he battles, but it was the Marshall Plan won the war, and the subsequent Cold war besides. The US and her allies in the present have created no such legacy, for all their costly foreign expeditions.