I think you're missing one thing: how much parents encourage and supervise their kids' education. If they just send off the children to school and are not interested in their education further, they'll get little return from their taxes. Homeschoolers take active interest in their children, and that's the main reason why a part of them is successful. However, I think the optimum solution is to send your kid to a good school and take active interest in his/her education. Homeschooling is difficult and may lead to children lacking certain areas of knowledge, because the parents are not experts in every area (there are only two of them, and schools employ more teachers than that) or because the parents don't like evolution or special relativity, and ommit these important facts in the material they teach. Besides, not everyone is a good teacher, while everyone can try to inspire his children to learn.
There is a slight difference between "having a special interest in agriculture subsidies" and "having a special interest in raising a child with a Down syndrome". With all the help one can get from outside, raising such kids is a really tough job and people who have such kids deserve our help.
Either we need eugenics real soon or some bureaucrats have found it profitable to define a lot of normal kids as disabled.
Nah, it's the kids and their parents themselves. It's easier to pass written exams when you get a paper saying you're dyslectic and dysgraphics. Why need to bother with a misbehaving child, that is rude to colleagues and teachers, when you can get a paper saying it has "compulsive disorder" or something like that?
You're wrong. Scientific theories are not "proven" in the sense we know they're 100% correct. Theories are demonstrated to explain the phenomena they claim to explain, the predict new phenomena which were unknown before and to withstand critical tests. For example, Einstein's special theory of relativity explained the known facts (it had Newtonian mechanics as it's low-speed limit and it explained Michaelson-Morley experiment), predicted new phenomena (E=mc^2, that the mass of moving particles changes, lenghtening of the life-time of decaying particles when accelerated to speeds almost equal to the speed of light). It also withstood experiments designed to test it. All of them. That's what makes a theory taken to be "correct". It's not, however, a 100% guarantee that Einstein's theory is right and there does not exist a "better" theory which makes the same predictions in the areas where Einstein was experimentally proven to be right, but also explains other phenomena, is based on different assumptions, and so on.
I don't question 1.-3., but isn't there a possibility to make electrons tunnel in one direction, but prohibit it in other directions? (The idea of using tunneling instead of normal conductivity is lousy anyway).
Well, Einstein's 1905 papers were reviewed, sort of, by the editors (not independent reviewers). Planck himself accepted one of them for publication. Besides, I don't think that you're right when speaking of modern papers.
I skimmed the article and I'm totally pissed off. The guy says "OK, quantum mechanics needs universal time, but black holes make us unable to parametrize space-time with one coordinate system, so to hell with black holes". I have several problems with this argument:
if quantum mechanics (nonrelativistic, to add, the one that can't predict spontaneous emmission of light from excited atoms) needs universal time, that only means it is an approximate theory. More fundamental theories (like QED) live without universal time.
the guy is totally wrong when he thinks that it suffices to remove the black holes and pop! we can diagonalize the metric everywhere. He's wrong. He wants to have a flat space-time, or what? Or maybe he want's only to have a universal coordinate system, without diagonalizing the metric, but that's different story and just shows he doesn't have much of a clue about General Relativity
They are distinct in theory. In practice, it'll all dissolve into either anarchy or dictatorship. Oh, and the true anarchy is simply the dictatorship of the strongest.
That's what you said. If something help spread AIDS, it's responsible for it, right? Who's splitting hairs here? Now, what I said the Church is saying, is that the condoms encourage promiscuous behaviour, and this behaviour help spread AIDS. Church is simply saying "condoms may or may not save you, but being faithful to each other in marriage certainly will". I'm not defending this doctrine, I think the Bible does not say anything about condoms. What it says that married people should have children, but it doesn't prevent them from exerting control over when and how many children they should have. Church sees things otherwise, but accusing it of helping to spread AIDS is simply unwise. Church with its members has done more to help poor people in the world than many of the loud-speaking liberals.
With regards to the pedophilia thing, do you really think that changing "laws and procedures" solves everything? It amounts to nothing but talk until some kind of real actions are taken.
Sigh. Changing laws and procedures is real action. It is how large institutions change themselves in reaction to problems. Exactly what else do you propose? Telling all priests to stay away from any child below 18? One of their roles is to educate and teach youngsters. As a child I knew many priests, and none of them raised any suspicions about his possibility of being a pedophile. And they only did it when things were a complete mess and they were left with no choice but to pretend to be doing something about it thanks to public pressure.
They're not pretending. I read that now in Poland, priests, most of them who were never suspected of anything, are now very cautious with how they interact with children. They don't want to raise any doubts about their conduct.
There was a surprising lack of accountability for years with regards to that whole scandal -- and it took years for them to take even token measures despite the fact that the epidemic was widespread and pretty well known.
"Epidemic was widespread"? Exactly how many certified (eg., by court ruling) cases of pedophilia among priests in the U.S.A do you know? How does it compare to cases of pedophilia among teachers?
Trying to compare their response to how other institutions react to crisis is nothing more than changing the subject.
No, it's not. I wanted to highlight the fact that large organizations always display certain inertia when reacting to such problems. This is of course very bad, and the Church apologized for this too, but it's reality.
Why? I'd rephrase the guy's comment in a slightly different, maybe a softer way: "freedom of speech is sometimes freedom to make a fool of yourself". Why do people so often think their freedom of speech means nobody can criticize what they said, or kindly and peacefully advise they shouldn't have said what they said, that their words might be hurting someone or damaging to some institution? This is not censorship, this is open and fair discussion. If we cry "censorship" without reson, who'll listen when there is real censorship?
The position of Vatican was not that the condoms directly spread AIDS, but that they do not stop it as effectively as its advocates say, and encourage dangerous behaviour by giving a false sense of security. While debatable, it is not equivalent to what you said. With regards to pedophilia, the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged its mistakes and made a lot of changes in its laws and procedures. Be so kind and compare this "we have erred, we are very sorry and we are correcting out attitude" to the "we are always right, no need to change anything" attitude displayed by various institutions (the U.N., the governments of various states) whenever the shit hits the fan.
You're right that the bonds make the total mass smaller. But we're talking about stable molecules here, which bonded in one specific way. If their mass were to change, they would have to decay or interact with the environment. If the molecule is stable, it's energy is very well defined. The only limiting factor is the principle of uncertainty, which basically tells here, that the longer you measure the mass, the more precise you are. So the deviation of the measurement may change, but not its expectation value. It would be very interesting, however, if we could apply this -- or other -- technique to measuring masses of unstable molecules and watch how it changes in time.
You're taking the probleme to the extreme. Noone will die because he has to wait 10 seconds more for the ATM to process the transaction, or because he will be billed $10 more. It's the notion that the majority of software is used in mission-critical systems which is laughable.
Besides, have you any idea how much this shuttle software costs? Money is a scare resource and needs to be spent reasonably. That's why people choose to relie on user bug reports. Besides, I have no doubt they received some bug reports from the user (e.g., NASA). They probably won't admit it, but nobody's perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing one thing: how much parents encourage and supervise their kids' education. If they just send off the children to school and are not interested in their education further, they'll get little return from their taxes. Homeschoolers take active interest in their children, and that's the main reason why a part of them is successful. However, I think the optimum solution is to send your kid to a good school and take active interest in his/her education. Homeschooling is difficult and may lead to children lacking certain areas of knowledge, because the parents are not experts in every area (there are only two of them, and schools employ more teachers than that) or because the parents don't like evolution or special relativity, and ommit these important facts in the material they teach. Besides, not everyone is a good teacher, while everyone can try to inspire his children to learn.
but the US hasn't lagged in a 10 year recession, nor seen 10%+ inflation rates, or 9%+ unemployment rate.
Such statements are useless unless it is said what period you're talking about. The USA had 10%+ inflation rates in the '70s, for example.
There is a slight difference between "having a special interest in agriculture subsidies" and "having a special interest in raising a child with a Down syndrome". With all the help one can get from outside, raising such kids is a really tough job and people who have such kids deserve our help.
Either we need eugenics real soon or some bureaucrats have found it profitable to define a lot of normal kids as disabled.
Nah, it's the kids and their parents themselves. It's easier to pass written exams when you get a paper saying you're dyslectic and dysgraphics. Why need to bother with a misbehaving child, that is rude to colleagues and teachers, when you can get a paper saying it has "compulsive disorder" or something like that?
Maybe the "new college graduates" aren't skilled enough? You mean those colleges where they teach Physics from Resnick and Halliday?
If it were the Democrats doing that, it would be OK. If it's the Republicans, it must be suspicious and vile. Congratulations.
You're wrong. Scientific theories are not "proven" in the sense we know they're 100% correct. Theories are demonstrated to explain the phenomena they claim to explain, the predict new phenomena which were unknown before and to withstand critical tests. For example, Einstein's special theory of relativity explained the known facts (it had Newtonian mechanics as it's low-speed limit and it explained Michaelson-Morley experiment), predicted new phenomena (E=mc^2, that the mass of moving particles changes, lenghtening of the life-time of decaying particles when accelerated to speeds almost equal to the speed of light). It also withstood experiments designed to test it. All of them. That's what makes a theory taken to be "correct". It's not, however, a 100% guarantee that Einstein's theory is right and there does not exist a "better" theory which makes the same predictions in the areas where Einstein was experimentally proven to be right, but also explains other phenomena, is based on different assumptions, and so on.
Did you read the article? The organizers didn't get any review for the paper.
I don't question 1.-3., but isn't there a possibility to make electrons tunnel in one direction, but prohibit it in other directions? (The idea of using tunneling instead of normal conductivity is lousy anyway).
Well, Einstein's 1905 papers were reviewed, sort of, by the editors (not independent reviewers). Planck himself accepted one of them for publication. Besides, I don't think that you're right when speaking of modern papers.
A very, very, very weak light source. In theory you're right, but in practice it's hopeless.
The black holes can't be observed 'as such' as they suck light and won't give it back. All we see is their effects on the surrounding matter.
Point out any resolution passed by the Security Council which Israel broke.
Why do you think I am biased?
They are distinct in theory. In practice, it'll all dissolve into either anarchy or dictatorship. Oh, and the true anarchy is simply the dictatorship of the strongest.
condoms help spread AIDS
That's what you said. If something help spread AIDS, it's responsible for it, right? Who's splitting hairs here? Now, what I said the Church is saying, is that the condoms encourage promiscuous behaviour, and this behaviour help spread AIDS. Church is simply saying "condoms may or may not save you, but being faithful to each other in marriage certainly will". I'm not defending this doctrine, I think the Bible does not say anything about condoms. What it says that married people should have children, but it doesn't prevent them from exerting control over when and how many children they should have. Church sees things otherwise, but accusing it of helping to spread AIDS is simply unwise. Church with its members has done more to help poor people in the world than many of the loud-speaking liberals.
With regards to the pedophilia thing, do you really think that changing "laws and procedures" solves everything? It amounts to nothing but talk until some kind of real actions are taken.
Sigh. Changing laws and procedures is real action. It is how large institutions change themselves in reaction to problems. Exactly what else do you propose? Telling all priests to stay away from any child below 18? One of their roles is to educate and teach youngsters. As a child I knew many priests, and none of them raised any suspicions about his possibility of being a pedophile.
And they only did it when things were a complete mess and they were left with no choice but to pretend to be doing something about it thanks to public pressure.
They're not pretending. I read that now in Poland, priests, most of them who were never suspected of anything, are now very cautious with how they interact with children. They don't want to raise any doubts about their conduct.
There was a surprising lack of accountability for years with regards to that whole scandal -- and it took years for them to take even token measures despite the fact that the epidemic was widespread and pretty well known.
"Epidemic was widespread"? Exactly how many certified (eg., by court ruling) cases of pedophilia among priests in the U.S.A do you know? How does it compare to cases of pedophilia among teachers?
Trying to compare their response to how other institutions react to crisis is nothing more than changing the subject.
No, it's not. I wanted to highlight the fact that large organizations always display certain inertia when reacting to such problems. This is of course very bad, and the Church apologized for this too, but it's reality.
I have to ask the question: are you Catholic?
Why do you feel you have to ask this question?
Why? I'd rephrase the guy's comment in a slightly different, maybe a softer way: "freedom of speech is sometimes freedom to make a fool of yourself". Why do people so often think their freedom of speech means nobody can criticize what they said, or kindly and peacefully advise they shouldn't have said what they said, that their words might be hurting someone or damaging to some institution? This is not censorship, this is open and fair discussion. If we cry "censorship" without reson, who'll listen when there is real censorship?
The position of Vatican was not that the condoms directly spread AIDS, but that they do not stop it as effectively as its advocates say, and encourage dangerous behaviour by giving a false sense of security. While debatable, it is not equivalent to what you said. With regards to pedophilia, the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged its mistakes and made a lot of changes in its laws and procedures. Be so kind and compare this "we have erred, we are very sorry and we are correcting out attitude" to the "we are always right, no need to change anything" attitude displayed by various institutions (the U.N., the governments of various states) whenever the shit hits the fan.
No, they're simply decent. I know it's hard to come by here ;-)
You're right that the bonds make the total mass smaller. But we're talking about stable molecules here, which bonded in one specific way. If their mass were to change, they would have to decay or interact with the environment. If the molecule is stable, it's energy is very well defined. The only limiting factor is the principle of uncertainty, which basically tells here, that the longer you measure the mass, the more precise you are. So the deviation of the measurement may change, but not its expectation value. It would be very interesting, however, if we could apply this -- or other -- technique to measuring masses of unstable molecules and watch how it changes in time.
It says nothing about women or their behaviour, it is purely an assertion that they have an option open to them.
You're assuming a lot. I know a lot of people who'd fire a woman offering a blowjob for a favour, if they were her employer/boss.
You're taking the probleme to the extreme. Noone will die because he has to wait 10 seconds more for the ATM to process the transaction, or because he will be billed $10 more. It's the notion that the majority of software is used in mission-critical systems which is laughable. Besides, have you any idea how much this shuttle software costs? Money is a scare resource and needs to be spent reasonably. That's why people choose to relie on user bug reports. Besides, I have no doubt they received some bug reports from the user (e.g., NASA). They probably won't admit it, but nobody's perfect.
Show me one piece of complex software which could be developed without gaining bug reports from the users.
Then how do you setup X, network, add accounts? By telepathy?