Stupid question: how could stealth planes be invisible to missile radar systems, considering that they can use ultra-high-frequency IR, better known as a video image?
Sales reps tend to be more socially adept and sexually desirable, so their remarks are less likely to be counted as sexual harassment when compared to the same remarks from nerds.
And the reason undergraduates excel at those top universities is that they spend almost every day for several years in contact with the people and resources which make that research possible. They go to tutorials. They chat through problems. They do extended lab work. They write extended pieces of work which are marked carefully by experts who can provide interactive feedback.
Ahhh...hahahahaha! Oh, my, god, what a fucking JOKE! There might be maybe 2 universities where this idyllic scenario actually plays out (and even then probably not at the undergrad level). Wayyyy over here in the real world, that never fucking actually happens, and if it's your justification for traditional education, then it's an enormous rationalization of keeping things the way they are.
Well, we knew of birds, but not of working mechanisms that support their weight solely "from the air flowing past them", as airplanes do. Birds, rather, pump surrounding air downward whether or not the free-stream airspeed is significant, which is what allows them (and not airplanes) to hover.
"We're doing this extremely expensive, time-consuming experiment to calculate the density and viscosity of air."
What's the point?
"Well, if air has the right combination of density and viscosity, our models predict that a machine could be capable of supporting its own weight using only the air flowing past it -- a heavier-than-air flying machine!"
Why not just assume air has (certain combinations of) the right properties, build airframes based on that, and see if they fly? Then we wouldn't have to wait ten years and spend the wealth of several small countries.
But I don't think that this will cause new ways to blow things up - you may need something bigger than the CERN accelerator to make things happen.
That kind of addresses my question about this: if, for example, finding the Higgs boson is proof that (physics is such that) $AWESOME_TOOL can be built (exploiting such confirmed physical laws)...
Then why not just go ahead and try to build $AWESOME_TOOL, without waiting for the LHC's results? I mean, it's probably cheaper to just try, right?
In other words, if there is any practical application to this knowledge, couldn't it have been pursued independently of performing the LHC experiments?
In yet other words, when scientists gradually realized lasers were possible, people didn't wait for the results of some grand, most-expensive-ever experiment before attempting practical ways to employ light-amplification-through-stimulated-emission-of-radiation... did they?
To paraphrase someone: There are better languages than C. There are also better languages than English. Unfortunately, the world has latched on to both.
Whoa whoa whoa, Stanford is now doing PR for Google? Yikes, I didn't know they were *that* close.
I first thought that maybe you merely used that link because it reproduces Google's response (which it does, or claims to) and that was more convenient to get, but then I found this line:
Google circulated the following statement to media outlets and policymakers on Friday. The company did not post the statement on its website, and my understanding is that Google representatives declined to answer questions about the statement.
Wow, they don't want to respond publicly, but they get to have Standford shills go to bat for them? Scary.
Wow, that's neat! All these deep educational insights must be why American students' test scores are just *skyrocketing*, completely validating this literature!
I can understand why he wouldn't be able to deliver a *speech*, but why does that mean he can't show up at all? If he needs to communicate something, he can type it to a screen.
That's nothing, I know of guys who listen to their iTunes libraries while designing stuff related to nuclear weapons and missiles, in complete violation of the iTunes EULA! (See section g).
Also, how many Google employees wanted to be a "search engine optimizer" (or whatever) when they grew up? How many could have wanted it, since the concept didn't exist in their time?
Slashdot Mirror
It was designed, bought and paid for by the very interests that are now abusing it for profit.
Yes, those pornographers that control Congress and have every representative at their beck and call!
They basically *write* IP laws these days, lemma tell ya! Every politician wants to show off how they have the support of Big Porn!
(???)
I meant for close range detection with missiles.
Three words: Night Vision.
Stupid question: how could stealth planes be invisible to missile radar systems, considering that they can use ultra-high-frequency IR, better known as a video image?
Sales reps tend to be more socially adept and sexually desirable, so their remarks are less likely to be counted as sexual harassment when compared to the same remarks from nerds.
Taboo, but true.
Go submit a random math teacher's lesson to this level of scrutiny and see how many mistakes you find there.
But according to Wikipedia ...
And the reason undergraduates excel at those top universities is that they spend almost every day for several years in contact with the people and resources which make that research possible. They go to tutorials. They chat through problems. They do extended lab work. They write extended pieces of work which are marked carefully by experts who can provide interactive feedback.
Ahhh...hahahahaha! Oh, my, god, what a fucking JOKE! There might be maybe 2 universities where this idyllic scenario actually plays out (and even then probably not at the undergrad level). Wayyyy over here in the real world, that never fucking actually happens, and if it's your justification for traditional education, then it's an enormous rationalization of keeping things the way they are.
So, when that joke went over your head, was it like WHOOSH!, or was it more like bzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz?
I'm glad you cited a reliable source on this matter.
I'm not glad I had to be exposed to the neologism "pharmerging economy". *shudder*
Well, we knew of birds, but not of working mechanisms that support their weight solely "from the air flowing past them", as airplanes do. Birds, rather, pump surrounding air downward whether or not the free-stream airspeed is significant, which is what allows them (and not airplanes) to hover.
An analogous situation would be more like:
"We're doing this extremely expensive, time-consuming experiment to calculate the density and viscosity of air."
What's the point?
"Well, if air has the right combination of density and viscosity, our models predict that a machine could be capable of supporting its own weight using only the air flowing past it -- a heavier-than-air flying machine!"
Why not just assume air has (certain combinations of) the right properties, build airframes based on that, and see if they fly? Then we wouldn't have to wait ten years and spend the wealth of several small countries.
"Um, that works too."
But I don't think that this will cause new ways to blow things up - you may need something bigger than the CERN accelerator to make things happen.
That kind of addresses my question about this: if, for example, finding the Higgs boson is proof that (physics is such that) $AWESOME_TOOL can be built (exploiting such confirmed physical laws) ...
Then why not just go ahead and try to build $AWESOME_TOOL, without waiting for the LHC's results? I mean, it's probably cheaper to just try, right?
In other words, if there is any practical application to this knowledge, couldn't it have been pursued independently of performing the LHC experiments?
In yet other words, when scientists gradually realized lasers were possible, people didn't wait for the results of some grand, most-expensive-ever experiment before attempting practical ways to employ light-amplification-through-stimulated-emission-of-radiation ... did they?
Or you could summarize why, per the article, we no longer have Jeffersons.
To paraphrase someone: There are better languages than C. There are also better languages than English. Unfortunately, the world has latched on to both.
Whoa whoa whoa, Stanford is now doing PR for Google? Yikes, I didn't know they were *that* close.
I first thought that maybe you merely used that link because it reproduces Google's response (which it does, or claims to) and that was more convenient to get, but then I found this line:
Google circulated the following statement to media outlets and policymakers on Friday. The company did not post the statement on its website, and my understanding is that Google representatives declined to answer questions about the statement.
Wow, they don't want to respond publicly, but they get to have Standford shills go to bat for them? Scary.
Respect for Google: waning.
Wow, that's neat! All these deep educational insights must be why American students' test scores are just *skyrocketing*, completely validating this literature!
Hey, that's a neat trick!
"State government's aren't funded by sales taxes, they're funded by a license fee on retail purchases."
"Local public schools aren't funded by property taxes, they're funded by a land-ownership license fee."
"Roads aren't funded by gasoline taxes, they're funded by the pump license."
What's next? "We don't send people to jail, they just go on a 'Graybar Vacation'."
I'm stupid enough to be fooled by labels ... and I vote!
I can understand why he wouldn't be able to deliver a *speech*, but why does that mean he can't show up at all? If he needs to communicate something, he can type it to a screen.
That's nothing, I know of guys who listen to their iTunes libraries while designing stuff related to nuclear weapons and missiles, in complete violation of the iTunes EULA! (See section g).
I always make sure to say "east Indians" when referring to Indians from India if there's any chance of ambiguity.
Holy crap, I didn't know they had these already!
Someone needs to roll this together with a pen and a projector so you can have a bite-sized full-function computer everywhere you go.
Also, how many Google employees wanted to be a "search engine optimizer" (or whatever) when they grew up? How many could have wanted it, since the concept didn't exist in their time?
Right, but a criminal can be "smart" enough to betray his accomplice and pin the crime on him.
To do a variation on the old joke: "What? Are you crazy? Even if you plan extra hard, you can't outsmart the police!"
"No, but I can outsmart you."