>Do we really adapt as well as any other species? We do not exercise any form of population control. We do not find balance with our environment. Our birth numbers actually increase in lean times.
Does any creature exercise any form of population control besides "have as many kids as possible and the ones who don't get eaten or otherwise come to a mess end can do the same?"
The "balance" creatures find with their environments are all dynamical ones based on trying to get as much resources as possible while everything else is doing the same.
In most universities I am familiar with in North America, computer access wireless or wired required a signon with your university network-ID and password. Thus bandwidth tracking is certainly possible. If the poster is in a place with high data-transmission costs (such as New Zealand or basically anywhere outside of NAmerica, Europe and parts of Asia) it seems likely that they would implement this type of thing.
What would be nice is if they had a large caching system on the local university network (which seems likely) and that they didn't charge students for access to any local (within the local network) system access, which seems much more difficult to track and "bill" so likely is not done.
Elementary particles with no charge cannot have an anti-particle, since the definition of anti-particle has to do with having the opposite charge, as I understand things.
That's pretty nifty. I wonder if that is the minimal piece of hardware that falls under this regulation? Do you need a license to carry it in various states and cities?
Nobel prizes (at least in physics - I don't follow the others as much) often tend to lag the discoveries for a fairly large number of years, and they try to go for things that are widely accepted. Fr example Einstein got it in 1921 for work published in 1905 on the Photoelectric Effect, Leggett's 2003 prize was for work done in the 1980s I think, and Kilby's prize in 2000 was for the integrated circuit obviously done more than a few years earlier. If the LHC has any Nobel prize fallout, it will not hit for at least a decade.
I was recently at a physics conference and one of the people doing research on physics education dropped this little tidbit. Their surveys of elementary school children found that significant numbers of students said they didn't want to become scientists because "scientists dress poorly" - even grade three boys notice people's fashion sense.
I just thought this up, so maybe it has huge holes in it.
What if you just find four or five people of similar skill level who decide to always play together and equally share their winnings and expenses? If they are all reasonably skilled, wouldn't their "team" tend to win more often than the other one or two players at the table, even without an collusion beyond the after-game profit sharing? I guess the effectiveness of this is limited by an inability to pool resources while in the game, but might the "luck" part of the game favour their team having four or five hands compared to the single hands of their opponents? Or is the house take large enough that in order to make a profit you need to compete against enough other independent agents that there is enough of their money for the house and you as well?
in the US it is ILLEGAL for any company to give you a derogatory reference.
How would that type of law pass constitutional muster? That whole "freedom of speach" thing would seem to get in the way.
Do you have any citation for this? I don't doubt that many places have a policy of revealing nothing beyond dates, but that is due to fear of civil liability rather than illegality.
When people have no hope of improving their lives, they don't try to improve them. You can't, and probably shouldn't, improve someones life for them, but you can give them a hand up so that when they do try to improve themselves(and I mean genuinely try) that they are rewarded for it.
aside - love that comment box!
Anyhow, this type of policy seems to be a case of trying to regulate the type of behaviour on the teacher's part that reasonable teachers have always implemented - namely trying to fairly assess students' performance in light of the limitations of typical grading systems. If "Chris" does very poorly at the start of the year but manages to recover, they should be given recognition of that.
Ontario has recently tried to mandate similar "humanity" in how students' grades are calculated in light of missed work or underperformance in a class - makeup work and tests now seem to be required by the ministry of education's regulations. Previously that was done on a case-case basis now is mandated. Of course most people think that giving "Chris" a second chance on a test or assignment due to problems beyond their control is laudable, but it is difficult to craft a regulation that is does not have unintended negative consequences. Thus there are now many teachers who feel powerless to enforce any sort of deadlines on their students since they feel that they cannot punish submission of late work, or even non-submission of work. And of course all of the creation and grading of make-up tests and assignments and whole courses increases the load on the whole system. At the university level, there are growing anecdotal reports of students being completely unprepared to work on anything but their own schedule - and failing when they find a system that will not accept their attempts to not do their work on time.
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
"pulled back, then again and again with less travel each time"
Unless it dissipates its energy somehow it should keep going with about the same amount of "travel" indefinitely. I would think that the thing would fairly quickly end up with zero net charge (if it doesn't start out that way) by sucking in some electrons or protons via the electromagnetic force, so the only interactions the thing will have will be gravitational, and it will be subatomic in size, so it seems like it isn't going to hit anything as nuclei are such a small fraction of the volume of anything.
L&M also has a calculus version available, "Simple Nature" and most (all?) of the books therein have full Latex sources available. I've used parts of the books in physics courses I have taught at the university level, but there is also a lot there good for the HS level.
I am pretty sure that iChat is just a branded version of AOL's AIM, and AIM client on any other platform should be fine for talking to an iChat client on a Mac.
"Factitious" means "deliberately misleading". Makes no sense for a return address.
Sure it does. Was the unibomber using return addresses like "Your Loving mom, 123 Main St, Your Hometown"? or perhaps "Free Prize Ticking Clock Company, NY, NY"? Those might be considered "deliberately misleading" as well as, for the second one at least, fictitious.
It would seems however that if someone were to actually write software to do the job that the patented hardware did, that software would not be in violation of the patent. Thus the patented hardware offers little "protection" to the patent-holder, and little value to the purchaser.
Of course the same can be said for Mohamed and Joseph Smith - even without direct historical evidence their followers clearly had great influence. However, if it just required a large number of believers to prove existence then clearly we would have proof that chain letters are legal, Bill Gates wants to give you money for sending email, and collecting pull-tabs from pop cans can save the planet or something.
Also you might note that even if we accept the historacalitiy (what is that word?) of Jesus, Mohamed, and Joseph Smith, they cannot all be correct, since they each claim that the other two are not legit. Yet the evidence to back them each up is surprisingly similarly justified.
I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.
These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.
There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.
Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.
Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.
I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:
I sure the issue is more likely where would Texas and California have over 1 million books printed (not to mention all the other states)?
I cannot believe that they couldn't find someone to print their order. There are lots of printers out there, and they do not all have to come from the same print shop - spread the printing around the state.
I have thought the same myself - surely basic texts need not change much from year to year, and big markets like Texas and California have to spend enough on textbooks that the cost of writing them "in-house" would be cheaper than purchasing them.
I think that only works if you also record the fee as income - basically you are taking the cash they paid you for your service and donating it back to them. I think this to to prevent abuses where someone "donates" clearly unreasonable values purely for a "fake" donation deduction.
Thus for most cases it is essentially a wash - your income is increased by the same amount that your donation decreases it. However, since business income is subject to a lot more possible deductions, including some that are do not carry over from year to year, there may be advantages to actually structuring it that way.
If Monty doesn't know and picked randomly, then he had a 1/3 chance with his door, and the other doors also each had a 1/3 chance. Your door thus still has equal chance as the unchosen door (1/3 out of 2/3, or 50%). You might be able to see this yourself by drawing out all of the 18 possible situations (you choose one of three doors, Monty chooses one of the other two doors, and the prize is behind one of three doors) if you eliminate the situations where Monty reveals the winner (which didn't happen, but could have if Monty doesn't know) you will see that switching doesn't help you. If Monty does know, there are not 18 possible situations of equal likelyhood.
If Monty does know, and you know what conditions he is revealing the door to you, you have gained some information about the two unopened doors. The classic form of the problem he always reveals a goat door - so you should switch to the door that he did not pick.
Slashdot Mirror
Does any creature exercise any form of population control besides "have as many kids as possible and the ones who don't get eaten or otherwise come to a mess end can do the same?"
The "balance" creatures find with their environments are all dynamical ones based on trying to get as much resources as possible while everything else is doing the same.
Humanitarians? No, wait, that's a different joke...
What would be nice is if they had a large caching system on the local university network (which seems likely) and that they didn't charge students for access to any local (within the local network) system access, which seems much more difficult to track and "bill" so likely is not done.
See the graphic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle and the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle is also of interest.
Elementary particles with no charge cannot have an anti-particle, since the definition of anti-particle has to do with having the opposite charge, as I understand things.
Do a google search on "JFGI" and the top hit is: http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/
Hear! Hear!
That's pretty nifty. I wonder if that is the minimal piece of hardware that falls under this regulation? Do you need a license to carry it in various states and cities?
Nobel prizes (at least in physics - I don't follow the others as much) often tend to lag the discoveries for a fairly large number of years, and they try to go for things that are widely accepted. Fr example Einstein got it in 1921 for work published in 1905 on the Photoelectric Effect, Leggett's 2003 prize was for work done in the 1980s I think, and Kilby's prize in 2000 was for the integrated circuit obviously done more than a few years earlier. If the LHC has any Nobel prize fallout, it will not hit for at least a decade.
I was recently at a physics conference and one of the people doing research on physics education dropped this little tidbit. Their surveys of elementary school children found that significant numbers of students said they didn't want to become scientists because "scientists dress poorly" - even grade three boys notice people's fashion sense.
What if you just find four or five people of similar skill level who decide to always play together and equally share their winnings and expenses? If they are all reasonably skilled, wouldn't their "team" tend to win more often than the other one or two players at the table, even without an collusion beyond the after-game profit sharing? I guess the effectiveness of this is limited by an inability to pool resources while in the game, but might the "luck" part of the game favour their team having four or five hands compared to the single hands of their opponents? Or is the house take large enough that in order to make a profit you need to compete against enough other independent agents that there is enough of their money for the house and you as well?
How would that type of law pass constitutional muster? That whole "freedom of speach" thing would seem to get in the way.
Do you have any citation for this? I don't doubt that many places have a policy of revealing nothing beyond dates, but that is due to fear of civil liability rather than illegality.
aside - love that comment box!
Anyhow, this type of policy seems to be a case of trying to regulate the type of behaviour on the teacher's part that reasonable teachers have always implemented - namely trying to fairly assess students' performance in light of the limitations of typical grading systems. If "Chris" does very poorly at the start of the year but manages to recover, they should be given recognition of that.
Ontario has recently tried to mandate similar "humanity" in how students' grades are calculated in light of missed work or underperformance in a class - makeup work and tests now seem to be required by the ministry of education's regulations. Previously that was done on a case-case basis now is mandated. Of course most people think that giving "Chris" a second chance on a test or assignment due to problems beyond their control is laudable, but it is difficult to craft a regulation that is does not have unintended negative consequences. Thus there are now many teachers who feel powerless to enforce any sort of deadlines on their students since they feel that they cannot punish submission of late work, or even non-submission of work. And of course all of the creation and grading of make-up tests and assignments and whole courses increases the load on the whole system. At the university level, there are growing anecdotal reports of students being completely unprepared to work on anything but their own schedule - and failing when they find a system that will not accept their attempts to not do their work on time.
PC is a "Pocket Computer", from back in the late 1970s - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Pocket_Computer, before IBM ever got into the game.
"pulled back, then again and again with less travel each time"
Unless it dissipates its energy somehow it should keep going with about the same amount of "travel" indefinitely. I would think that the thing would fairly quickly end up with zero net charge (if it doesn't start out that way) by sucking in some electrons or protons via the electromagnetic force, so the only interactions the thing will have will be gravitational, and it will be subatomic in size, so it seems like it isn't going to hit anything as nuclei are such a small fraction of the volume of anything.
L&M also has a calculus version available, "Simple Nature" and most (all?) of the books therein have full Latex sources available. I've used parts of the books in physics courses I have taught at the university level, but there is also a lot there good for the HS level.
I am pretty sure that iChat is just a branded version of AOL's AIM, and AIM client on any other platform should be fine for talking to an iChat client on a Mac.
Sure it does. Was the unibomber using return addresses like "Your Loving mom, 123 Main St, Your Hometown"? or perhaps "Free Prize Ticking Clock Company, NY, NY"? Those might be considered "deliberately misleading" as well as, for the second one at least, fictitious.
It would seems however that if someone were to actually write software to do the job that the patented hardware did, that software would not be in violation of the patent. Thus the patented hardware offers little "protection" to the patent-holder, and little value to the purchaser.
Of course the same can be said for Mohamed and Joseph Smith - even without direct historical evidence their followers clearly had great influence. However, if it just required a large number of believers to prove existence then clearly we would have proof that chain letters are legal, Bill Gates wants to give you money for sending email, and collecting pull-tabs from pop cans can save the planet or something.
Also you might note that even if we accept the historacalitiy (what is that word?) of Jesus, Mohamed, and Joseph Smith, they cannot all be correct, since they each claim that the other two are not legit. Yet the evidence to back them each up is surprisingly similarly justified.
I think you are not trying to find solutions to these two problems very hard.
These are just sketches - brought forth from whisps of memory, but I think the broad outlines are fairly correct. Places like alt.talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ might be useful to get the real details.
There are been a lot of skeptical commentary on Darwin's Black Box - it should be easy to dig up counter arguments to all of the items. Every one of the "complex" items that I have ever seen referenced, like the eye or the bombardier beetle's poison gas or the flagellum's tail, seems to be built from parts only slightly different than other parts other creatures are using to useful things. Half an eye is pretty darn useful compared to no eye at all, it doesn't take much change go alter an injecting needle structure into a rotating whip-tail, etc. Evolution is not always super speedy of eliminating superfluous things - one can still successfully compete without being perfectly optimal in all ways, at least for a little while and so bones that were once used as parts of gills can be re-purposed as parts of the ear/hearing system without needing completely new creation.
eye - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
flagella - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
beetle - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
ear - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html
Many species do have different numbers of chromosomes, but not all do, so your worries about numbers of chromosomes I might be misunderstanding - I think that the ape/human chromosome differences are in fact very strong evidence for a common ancestor. As I recall, if one exames the various genes on the chromosones in question, it becomes very clear that one particular human chromosome, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes.
see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html
Science does have some difficulty in defining "species" - in some cases it starts to be slightly nonsensical when bacteria reproduce asexually and frequently take the time to swap dna with whoever they meet what does "species" even mean? But in any case, most would agree that "cats" are not "dogs" and "apes" are not "humans", but trying to decide when the nutcracker finch is different from the seedcracker finch is more of a challenge.
species - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I don't know that I've given the most useful references, but the "Index of Creationist Claims" is a pretty comprehensive list of some supposed problems with the current understanding of the universe and some common responses to those criticisms. The most relevant part of the index in this case is CB900: Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
I have thought the same myself - surely basic texts need not change much from year to year, and big markets like Texas and California have to spend enough on textbooks that the cost of writing them "in-house" would be cheaper than purchasing them.
I think that only works if you also record the fee as income - basically you are taking the cash they paid you for your service and donating it back to them. I think this to to prevent abuses where someone "donates" clearly unreasonable values purely for a "fake" donation deduction. Thus for most cases it is essentially a wash - your income is increased by the same amount that your donation decreases it. However, since business income is subject to a lot more possible deductions, including some that are do not carry over from year to year, there may be advantages to actually structuring it that way.
A transformer to get 12V out of the "supply" house and then an inverter to pump it into the "sink" house should work.
If Monty does know, and you know what conditions he is revealing the door to you, you have gained some information about the two unopened doors. The classic form of the problem he always reveals a goat door - so you should switch to the door that he did not pick.