Congress is arguing that they have the legal right to demand the returns, but that argument is weak, and won't hold up in court.
That legal "right" applies only to the chairs of certain House & Senate committees, not Congress as a whole, and it has been used by them many times over the years since the law was passed in the 1920s, and specifically to investigate executive branch scandals. The only way to make it legal for the IRS to withhold the tax returns is to pass a new law overturning the old one - or to pack the justice department and courts with prosecutors & judges who are your lackeys.
Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups.
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
By the way, d2x/dx2 = 0, so there is nothing "missing".
Considering that, if actually defined, dx/dx should be 1, I would have thought that d^2x/dx^2 = d(dx/dx)/dx = d(1)/dx, which would be the limit of 1/dx as dx goes to zero, which would be undefined or infinity.
"d^2/dx^2" is just a shorthand way of writing "d(dy/dx)/dx". Just do the calculations in the order of the parentheses. I fail to see the problem with that. Am I missing something?
The faster you go, the more fuel it takes. And it scales exponentially, not linearly, so travelling faster always costs more.
Untrue. Ignoring supersonic flight and speeds just under Mach 1, there are essentially two forms of drag, neither of which scales exponentially. One, so-called parasitic drag, varies with the square of the speed, more or less. The other, lift-induced drag, goes down with increasing speed. Add the two together, and you get a "U-shaped" curve with an optimal speed in the valley.
Asexual species are hyperevolutionary because they only need ONE individual with ONE genetic mutation to colonize a whole new ecosystem.
Almost all complex organisms reproduce sexually (some of them also reproduce asexually) , because it increases variability by mixing and matching and by harboring recessive genes. Sexual species have been observed to evolve faster than asexual ones.
No, TFA is not about sales of computers.
It is about sales of the desktop operating system, which, according to TFA, is being pushed to the cloud by MS, so it will no longer be a stand-alone thing.
There is no way to "mathematically prove" security of software on the confidence-level of a mathematical poof.
They specifically said in the TFA that they picked Cryptography because it was feasible to mathematically prove the code is secure from known attacks. They also basically said it would be infeasible for them to try it with many types of complex programs.
Anybody claiming to have shown any real world properties are mathematically proven is either incompetent or a liar or both.
Not that it automatically makes them competent or truth-tellers or both, but they haven't done that in TFA. They claim they have mathematically proved that their code is secure against known attacks. Code is math so it is subject to mathematical proof. TFA didn;t include the proof, and I'm not sure that I could follow it, anyway, but a lot of posts here are assuming they claimed perfect security if you run their code, when they specifically and explicitly stated otherwise.
Indeed. Run screaming or start laughing. But do _not_ buy the snake-oil they are selling.
Or, spend some time reading RTFA before getting hysterical.
The more redundant devices you use, the more likely that there is a failure of at least one, which is not good, because now you have to decide what' going on. And if the failure modes are not different enough, it may be common that when one fails, many fail. You could be no better off with more and, depending on the math of the specifics, you might be actually worse off with more.
It was well known and *PROVEN* at one time, though these scientific methods and the observable information at hand that:
The Earth was flat
That was never proven and never a scientific theory.
The Earth was the center of the universe
That was a view of the world that was assumed, not scientifically proven. Even though some scientists worked to make their models fit that assumption, it was "disproven" by theories using better measurements..
The Earth is not only 4,000 years old......
That idea came from was a religious scholar who added up all the begats in the bible to come up with an estimated age. It had nothing to do with science.
The earth was cooling and we were on the cusp of another ice age (late 70s) (when I was growing up)
That was speculation made when the Milankovitch cycles were first becoming known. It seemed that if those cycles held true, we would be returning to a glaciation maximum in the next few thousand years, give or take a few thousand, and it was unkown how quickly that might occur. Combined with the cold winters in the 70s that gave the press something sensational to write, but it had nothing to do with scientific proof.
£120/year lost, or you can spend a thousands locating it, arranging to close the road, closing the road, digging up the road, fixing the pipe, filling in the hole and resurfacing the road.
Thing is, if you don't fix the small leak, it slowly undermines the road and you end up doing most of that anyway.
And if water is leaking out of the pipe, who knows what is getting in; it's not a particularly sanitary situation.
At least that is how it works here in Denmark - long waits for non-emergency treatment, severely understaffed, way too early release after treatment... and a tendency to host lingering department-wide infections due to rushed daily routines and sub-standard cleaning.
So it works about the same in Denmark as in the US, then.
So I checked the schedule for the certification of the 737 MAX and confirmed that it happened in 2017, but early enough to blame on REAL president Obama.
You could blame it on the Obama administration or the Trump administration, but it goes back
a long time.
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was the original statute allowing FAA to delegate activities, as the agency thinks necessary, to approved private people employed by aircraft manufacturers. Although paid by the manufacturers, these designees act as surrogates for FAA in examining aircraft designs, production quality, and airworthiness. The FAA is responsible for overseeing the designees' work and determining whether the designs meet FAA requirements for safety.
And yet, at least one of these sensors already failed.
And I'm wondering, what does 1 in 100,000 mean?
Is it 1 in 100,000 instruments over their lifetimes? That would be pretty good, but it obviously hasn't met that criteria.
Is it 1 in 100,000 flight hours? That wouldn't be very good for a harzadous failure like this.
Bottom line, though, is that Boeing should have had training materials about this failure mode.
Penicillin is use by bacteria to defend themselves. Of course there are other bacteria that are resistant to it! That's how bactiera A can eat bactiera B! Bacteria A are resistant to the effects of bacteria B's defenses, penicillin.
Your main point might be correct, but this is not. Penicillin was derived from mold, not from bacteria. RTFA that you linked.
If it was only as strong as an already known storm then how can it change our worst-case scenario?
The event of 2,610 years B.P. stands out because of its particular signature in the radionuclide data [i.e., carbon-14 (14C) data alone does not allow for an unequivocal detection of the event]. It illustrates that present efforts to find such events based solely on 14C data likely lead to an underestimated number of such potentially devastating events for our society.
GP was correct, you are wrong.
It would be 24 dB if you were measuring the amplitude of the sound wave, but we hear sound pressure, not amplitude. 12 dB is correct for a sound pressure reduction to around 6%.
And a reduction of 12 dB does take 70 dB to 58 dB (or 60 dB to 48 dB). It is a simple arithmetic subtraction when evaluating sound attenuators. It is not a simple addition when adding serveral sources together, but that's not what the sound attenuator number is.
Slashdot Mirror
That legal "right" applies only to the chairs of certain House & Senate committees, not Congress as a whole, and it has been used by them many times over the years since the law was passed in the 1920s, and specifically to investigate executive branch scandals. The only way to make it legal for the IRS to withhold the tax returns is to pass a new law overturning the old one - or to pack the justice department and courts with prosecutors & judges who are your lackeys.
Sure, just have someone cut off your testicles.
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
Using 1.1 as an exponent doesn't play well with errors that have a negative sign.
Considering that, if actually defined, dx/dx should be 1, I would have thought that d^2x/dx^2 = d(dx/dx)/dx = d(1)/dx, which would be the limit of 1/dx as dx goes to zero, which would be undefined or infinity.
"d^2/dx^2" is just a shorthand way of writing "d(dy/dx)/dx". Just do the calculations in the order of the parentheses. I fail to see the problem with that. Am I missing something?
Untrue. Ignoring supersonic flight and speeds just under Mach 1, there are essentially two forms of drag, neither of which scales exponentially. One, so-called parasitic drag, varies with the square of the speed, more or less. The other, lift-induced drag, goes down with increasing speed. Add the two together, and you get a "U-shaped" curve with an optimal speed in the valley.
Almost all complex organisms reproduce sexually (some of them also reproduce asexually) , because it increases variability by mixing and matching and by harboring recessive genes. Sexual species have been observed to evolve faster than asexual ones.
No, TFA is not about sales of computers.
It is about sales of the desktop operating system, which, according to TFA, is being pushed to the cloud by MS, so it will no longer be a stand-alone thing.
They specifically said in the TFA that they picked Cryptography because it was feasible to mathematically prove the code is secure from known attacks. They also basically said it would be infeasible for them to try it with many types of complex programs.
Not that it automatically makes them competent or truth-tellers or both, but they haven't done that in TFA. They claim they have mathematically proved that their code is secure against known attacks. Code is math so it is subject to mathematical proof. TFA didn;t include the proof, and I'm not sure that I could follow it, anyway, but a lot of posts here are assuming they claimed perfect security if you run their code, when they specifically and explicitly stated otherwise.
Or, spend some time reading RTFA before getting hysterical.
A single bit, not the least significant bit.
The more redundant devices you use, the more likely that there is a failure of at least one, which is not good, because now you have to decide what' going on. And if the failure modes are not different enough, it may be common that when one fails, many fail. You could be no better off with more and, depending on the math of the specifics, you might be actually worse off with more.
That was never proven and never a scientific theory.
That was a view of the world that was assumed, not scientifically proven. Even though some scientists worked to make their models fit that assumption, it was "disproven" by theories using better measurements..
That idea came from was a religious scholar who added up all the begats in the bible to come up with an estimated age. It had nothing to do with science.
That was speculation made when the Milankovitch cycles were first becoming known. It seemed that if those cycles held true, we would be returning to a glaciation maximum in the next few thousand years, give or take a few thousand, and it was unkown how quickly that might occur. Combined with the cold winters in the 70s that gave the press something sensational to write, but it had nothing to do with scientific proof.
Thing is, if you don't fix the small leak, it slowly undermines the road and you end up doing most of that anyway.
And if water is leaking out of the pipe, who knows what is getting in; it's not a particularly sanitary situation.
So it works about the same in Denmark as in the US, then.
On the contrary, if they don't need evidence, then they are fools, not allies.
You could blame it on the Obama administration or the Trump administration, but it goes back a long time.
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was the original statute allowing FAA to delegate activities, as the agency thinks necessary, to approved private people employed by aircraft manufacturers. Although paid by the manufacturers, these designees act as surrogates for FAA in examining aircraft designs, production quality, and airworthiness. The FAA is responsible for overseeing the designees' work and determining whether the designs meet FAA requirements for safety.
They tried to limit the number of changes to a proven airframe with a good safety record in order to save sales. FTFY
And yet, at least one of these sensors already failed.
And I'm wondering, what does 1 in 100,000 mean?
Is it 1 in 100,000 instruments over their lifetimes? That would be pretty good, but it obviously hasn't met that criteria.
Is it 1 in 100,000 flight hours? That wouldn't be very good for a harzadous failure like this.
Bottom line, though, is that Boeing should have had training materials about this failure mode.
You're forgetting the repent part, e.g. Luke 17:3
" . . . If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them."
Your main point might be correct, but this is not. Penicillin was derived from mold, not from bacteria. RTFA that you linked.
No, the DC-10 continued to fly passengers long after problems were fixed. I flew it twice.
The event of 2,610 years B.P. stands out because of its particular signature in the radionuclide data [i.e., carbon-14 (14C) data alone does not allow for an unequivocal detection of the event]. It illustrates that present efforts to find such events based solely on 14C data likely lead to an underestimated number of such potentially devastating events for our society.
GP was correct, you are wrong.
It would be 24 dB if you were measuring the amplitude of the sound wave, but we hear sound pressure, not amplitude. 12 dB is correct for a sound pressure reduction to around 6%.
And a reduction of 12 dB does take 70 dB to 58 dB (or 60 dB to 48 dB). It is a simple arithmetic subtraction when evaluating sound attenuators. It is not a simple addition when adding serveral sources together, but that's not what the sound attenuator number is.