It was forever ago when I went through the calculations, but it is indeed an interesting property of lasers that their beam initially shrinks in diameter with distance and then grows. So it could defocus instead of focus, depending on distance.
One advantage to being big. On the other hand, I don't know how nimble Apple can be at its current size. With a dictator (Steve Jobs) at the helm, and a small product line, size wasn't too much of a problem. Not sure how things will be now.
Whether or not this is a true story, or whether or not it's a government project, there is as much budget-reserving in private industry like what you described as there is in government. Probably more, since government is more transparent than private business, and so more people have access to exposing that little game, which tends to inhibit it some.
Really? I haven't seen it at any of the private companies I worked at. I admit some were big companies and I saw only a few subgroups; I also admit my sample isn't big, but I wonder if you have any better data than I have to make your claim.
Re:Without remorse there is no rehabilitation.
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 1
According to my read, he was remorseful for actual damage done. Just curious, what remorse do you have for your wrongs against others? If you have any, one would think you would be a bit more forgiving toward someone who has remorse and who has changed his ways.
To err is human... I forget the second half, what was it again?
I'm sympathetic to those teachers who have to teach kids whose parents have no interest in their own children.
That said, I'm not convinced that the vast majority of teachers are underpaid and underappreciated (they may be overworked). From what I see, retirement for teachers is ridiculously generous. If you are a teacher, I'd be curious about your take on the total package teachers are given.
Apple is fine to make left handed people, people with big noses, people who wear red shirts, and people with crooked teeth pay more for their products. All of these groups have alternatives they can and should give their business to. Many in Australia are apparently willing to pay what Apple is asking. If Australians stopped buying Apple products, it would force Apple to reduce their prices. I say, "Go for it." Vote with your pocket books and Apple will lower their prices.
There are many more destitute people on the streets of Calcutta than in London and we don't hear of them looting and burning buildings. I have heard various accounts of the rioter's socio-economic makeup and don't know which of them are based on facts, but the way any disadvantaged group has made any real and permanent gains has been to prove their detractors wrong by facing the odds and succeeding, which also serves as an example and incentive to their fellows.
Why people justify destroying innocent people's property and wrecking their people's lives is beyond me. But to answer your question to the GP, if I could afford a Blackberry, I'm guessing I wouldn't feel justified burning buildings, beating people, and stealing their possessions. If I was starving and without food or shelter, it is conceivable I would descend so low as to steal, but if I did indulge I would probably feel pretty guilty. If my conscience bothered me as I expect, I would even try to make amends.
I grant you that a certain percentage of that is because I have not been surrounded by lots of peers who think it's OK to beat little old ladies, smash cars, and take things other people have earned. When everyone around you says some bad thing is OK, the element of shame and disapproval from others is eliminated. Conscience should still remain, though. And I hardly think the problem is to eliminate cultural and societal strictures.
What about the people these yobs can harm next? Don't they have a right to be protected? A law has to be reasonable, not stupidly rigid. Let the courts decide if RIM violates privacy of honest citizens or helps put thugs in jail.
"Yes, and if we spent the military budget on educating the world and promoting equality (as opposed to pushing economic interests, which is what practically every military conflict ever fought has been about) we could probably achieve world peace."
World peace? Changing human nature? It would require more than the military budget to do that. Well, unless you can buy a magic lantern for a few billion.
Now over time, I think evolutionary change is possible. But that is more a function of human experience than money or some educational agenda.
Bush Sr. and Clinton passed legislation that required the administrators of the CRA to rank banks on their lending activities and to deny banks the right to open branches or to buy other banks if they are rated low. Pres. Banks were required to show the numbers of loans they made in their neighborhoods. And Congress made “blackmail” by neighborhood activists’ legal by providing for public hearings on the ratings. If there were no pay-offs, you can be sure the neighborhood activists would find grounds to challenge the banks.
So I have heard from many who have visited China. However there is a small percentage in any population that thinks outside the box.
Many of the innovative Chinese went abroad because of herd mentality in their homeland, but the flow is starting to reverse. Some of the innovative and out-of-the-box thinking Chinese scientists are returning from American and European universities because there is at least now oodles of capital back home to work with.
It's just my personal reading of early trends, but I wouldn't be shocked to see more innovation coming from China in the future. If you read the names on publications from American universities you see an astonishing number of Chang's, Wong's, Li's. That's in addition to Chandra's, Krishna's, Gupta's... etc. Many, of course, do stay here. Time will tell.
They are not redefining what size means. They are measuring the distribution of charge more accurately by looking at transitions between energy levels of electrons (or muons in the newer experiment.) If they can measure an energy difference to within a certain accuracy and the difference is bigger with a muon transition than with an electron transition, the percentage error is smaller, hence the error in the derived charge distribution is smaller.
religion is not and cannot be relevant to any scientific discipline: this is utter bullsh!t. Science is science and it has *nothing* to do with people's beliefs. It is religion that has to accommodate for science, not the other way round.
Rather myopic and opinionated.
Science has its own unproven beliefs. For example, that the only reality is what we can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell. Cautious scientists do not go so far and say that they restrict their investigation to matter, but consciousness cannot be separated from matter. It is always the subject looking at the object. In medical science, doctors are having to take a second look at mind/body dualism, as the body cannot be totally treated as a meat machine.
Much as most scientists have a closet kind of metaphysics, even most confirmed materialist atheists operate as if love is not a group of chemical reactions in the body that we label as love.
Did he say that? Even if it's a joke, there is some wisdom in it.
IANAQ (I am not a quant), but from what I gather from my amateur read on things, these quants find tricks to squeeze out a tiny percentage more average yield, but the average hides considerable risks in addition to the considerable gains. Furthermore, sound basic business principles, which after all produce the quantities the quants fiddle with, have been ignored under the spell of mathematical wizardry.
I admit I may have half digested what I have heard from some in the finance world, and would be interested in what any quants who also have some business knowledge have to say.
So, before you whip up a storm about censorship, bear in mind that Apple are in fact entitled to reject selling any specific app from their online store; they don't have to give a reason, and if they do, it doesn't really have to be reasonable. If they believe that it makes business sense to not sell the works of a satirist, that is their choice, and all we can do is take note and form our own opinion about it.
I suspect the law is as you say. At least it makes sense that a private corporation can sell what it wants to sell, especially if a customer has other outlets. And there are plenty of outlets for Fiore. Mr. Fiore doesn't have to force himself on the unwilling. And I don't care about his childish tantrums either. If I sell combination radio-hoola hoops, I don't want some spoiled brat walking into my store and demanding I carry solar powered toasters.
Well, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The study mentioned by the NYT corrected for age and perhaps other factors they had models and data for. But I don't know if they could quantify all environmental factors like exposure to synthetic materials, stress, intake of preservatives and saturated fats, obesity, etc.
Second, there are specific cancers that they have been able to treat with more success like leukemia. The NYT series did show graphs of age adjusted deaths by individual cancer, but alas these graphs only go as far as 1994, so individual success stories tend to be obscured.
Slashdot Mirror
what is the difference between an engine and a motor?
Haven't heard that one. The engine peels the banana before eating it?
It was forever ago when I went through the calculations, but it is indeed an interesting property of lasers that their beam initially shrinks in diameter with distance and then grows. So it could defocus instead of focus, depending on distance.
One advantage to being big. On the other hand, I don't know how nimble Apple can be at its current size. With a dictator (Steve Jobs) at the helm, and a small product line, size wasn't too much of a problem. Not sure how things will be now.
Donald Sadoway, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on Musk's claims:
"I would have used the same words, I'm glad someone with such a big reputation put it on the line."
I don't think, therefore I'm not. - Rene a la Carte.
Whether or not this is a true story, or whether or not it's a government project, there is as much budget-reserving in private industry like what you described as there is in government. Probably more, since government is more transparent than private business, and so more people have access to exposing that little game, which tends to inhibit it some.
Really? I haven't seen it at any of the private companies I worked at. I admit some were big companies and I saw only a few subgroups; I also admit my sample isn't big, but I wonder if you have any better data than I have to make your claim.
According to my read, he was remorseful for actual damage done. Just curious, what remorse do you have for your wrongs against others? If you have any, one would think you would be a bit more forgiving toward someone who has remorse and who has changed his ways.
To err is human ... I forget the second half, what was it again?
I'm sympathetic to those teachers who have to teach kids whose parents have no interest in their own children.
That said, I'm not convinced that the vast majority of teachers are underpaid and underappreciated (they may be overworked). From what I see, retirement for teachers is ridiculously generous. If you are a teacher, I'd be curious about your take on the total package teachers are given.
Apple is fine to make left handed people, people with big noses, people who wear red shirts, and people with crooked teeth pay more for their products. All of these groups have alternatives they can and should give their business to. Many in Australia are apparently willing to pay what Apple is asking. If Australians stopped buying Apple products, it would force Apple to reduce their prices. I say, "Go for it." Vote with your pocket books and Apple will lower their prices.
There are many more destitute people on the streets of Calcutta than in London and we don't hear of them looting and burning buildings. I have heard various accounts of the rioter's socio-economic makeup and don't know which of them are based on facts, but the way any disadvantaged group has made any real and permanent gains has been to prove their detractors wrong by facing the odds and succeeding, which also serves as an example and incentive to their fellows.
Why people justify destroying innocent people's property and wrecking their people's lives is beyond me. But to answer your question to the GP, if I could afford a Blackberry, I'm guessing I wouldn't feel justified burning buildings, beating people, and stealing their possessions. If I was starving and without food or shelter, it is conceivable I would descend so low as to steal, but if I did indulge I would probably feel pretty guilty. If my conscience bothered me as I expect, I would even try to make amends.
I grant you that a certain percentage of that is because I have not been surrounded by lots of peers who think it's OK to beat little old ladies, smash cars, and take things other people have earned. When everyone around you says some bad thing is OK, the element of shame and disapproval from others is eliminated. Conscience should still remain, though. And I hardly think the problem is to eliminate cultural and societal strictures.
What about the people these yobs can harm next? Don't they have a right to be protected? A law has to be reasonable, not stupidly rigid. Let the courts decide if RIM violates privacy of honest citizens or helps put thugs in jail.
"Yes, and if we spent the military budget on educating the world and promoting equality (as opposed to pushing economic interests, which is what practically every military conflict ever fought has been about) we could probably achieve world peace."
World peace? Changing human nature? It would require more than the military budget to do that. Well, unless you can buy a magic lantern for a few billion.
Now over time, I think evolutionary change is possible. But that is more a function of human experience than money or some educational agenda.
Look it up.
It might be able to retrieve tiny satellites, but it's too small for, say, one of the Key Hole spy satellites.
I've wondered this for a while: IBM, Toshiba, and Sony developed the cell. Pray tell, they sell a cell, how do they divide the income?
So I have heard from many who have visited China. However there is a small percentage in any population that thinks outside the box. Many of the innovative Chinese went abroad because of herd mentality in their homeland, but the flow is starting to reverse. Some of the innovative and out-of-the-box thinking Chinese scientists are returning from American and European universities because there is at least now oodles of capital back home to work with. It's just my personal reading of early trends, but I wouldn't be shocked to see more innovation coming from China in the future. If you read the names on publications from American universities you see an astonishing number of Chang's, Wong's, Li's. That's in addition to Chandra's, Krishna's, Gupta's ... etc. Many, of course, do stay here. Time will tell.
They are not redefining what size means. They are measuring the distribution of charge more accurately by looking at transitions between energy levels of electrons (or muons in the newer experiment.) If they can measure an energy difference to within a certain accuracy and the difference is bigger with a muon transition than with an electron transition, the percentage error is smaller, hence the error in the derived charge distribution is smaller.
The ballad of Freddie Blassie
religion is not and cannot be relevant to any scientific discipline: this is utter bullsh!t. Science is science and it has *nothing* to do with people's beliefs. It is religion that has to accommodate for science, not the other way round.
Rather myopic and opinionated.
Science has its own unproven beliefs. For example, that the only reality is what we can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell. Cautious scientists do not go so far and say that they restrict their investigation to matter, but consciousness cannot be separated from matter. It is always the subject looking at the object. In medical science, doctors are having to take a second look at mind/body dualism, as the body cannot be totally treated as a meat machine.
Much as most scientists have a closet kind of metaphysics, even most confirmed materialist atheists operate as if love is not a group of chemical reactions in the body that we label as love.
Did he say that? Even if it's a joke, there is some wisdom in it.
IANAQ (I am not a quant), but from what I gather from my amateur read on things, these quants find tricks to squeeze out a tiny percentage more average yield, but the average hides considerable risks in addition to the considerable gains. Furthermore, sound basic business principles, which after all produce the quantities the quants fiddle with, have been ignored under the spell of mathematical wizardry.
I admit I may have half digested what I have heard from some in the finance world, and would be interested in what any quants who also have some business knowledge have to say.
So, before you whip up a storm about censorship, bear in mind that Apple are in fact entitled to reject selling any specific app from their online store; they don't have to give a reason, and if they do, it doesn't really have to be reasonable. If they believe that it makes business sense to not sell the works of a satirist, that is their choice, and all we can do is take note and form our own opinion about it.
I suspect the law is as you say. At least it makes sense that a private corporation can sell what it wants to sell, especially if a customer has other outlets. And there are plenty of outlets for Fiore. Mr. Fiore doesn't have to force himself on the unwilling. And I don't care about his childish tantrums either. If I sell combination radio-hoola hoops, I don't want some spoiled brat walking into my store and demanding I carry solar powered toasters.
Interesting post. But you said there is no internet connectivity, and they can still be hacked into. Through what medium?
A voice of reason. Thanks. Alas, no mod points to give.
Well, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The study mentioned by the NYT corrected for age and perhaps other factors they had models and data for. But I don't know if they could quantify all environmental factors like exposure to synthetic materials, stress, intake of preservatives and saturated fats, obesity, etc.
Second, there are specific cancers that they have been able to treat with more success like leukemia. The NYT series did show graphs of age adjusted deaths by individual cancer, but alas these graphs only go as far as 1994, so individual success stories tend to be obscured.
Does that mean slashdot stories have a half-life of 3 weeks?