I would say it's the opposite, professors that are not tenured have more pressure to produce results in their research so they can earn tenure. Their research, publications and teaching evaluations are all considered for tenure. Once tenured teaching evaluations have no effect on pay or text book deals, there is no motivation for a tenured professor to be a good teacher other then their own.
The price of sending letters has gone up for three reasons one it was under priced before privatization happened, two the cost of the letter needs to have an ROI for the owners, they need to make their money back, thirdly electronic means have reduced the volume meaning that most facilities are way too large, all that overhead has to be covered by a smaller number of letters.
A simple fish tank can be turned into a clean room so that's not a big deal, trying to desolder 100 pins spaced 0.01" apart then resoldering them, unless you have a 0.1 mill precision soldering robot it is impossible, you can't even buy wire thin enough to do it by hand.
So you've never had a hard disk controller failure then?
" Worst case scenario, you can always get the platters transfered in a good drive and recover from there"
What makes you think you can't take FLASH devices and access them in a similar way to platters? Just like with platters, you won't be able to access data on any damaged portions but unlike with platters it is unlikely that the platters will trash the read/write heads of the new drive.
I don't know what your talking about it's very easy to desolder a couple hundred pins on a board, then install a new chip and resolder the new chip back in. That's just as easy as popping off the back of the HD removing a couple a screws and pulling out the platter.
Here are just a few facts that contradict your idiotic rambling. Regarding the 1%ers only 9% of their net-worth came from inheritance (Federal Reserve data study conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff). 67% of millionaires are self made, 1/3 of respondents were born outside the US or were 1st generation citizens (BMO Private Bank study). The fact is you are unsuccessful because of you, not the man holding you down, as soon as you take responsibility for your own success or failure you will start doing much better.
If you recall that was when the internet was subsidized an only available to very few. So instead of paying for the services that a few people can utilize with money the government confiscated from people it is now paid for by companies trying to sell a product and available to everyone.
People used to use the Internet to learn things, and to share information with other people. Until the unwashed massed got to it in the mid 90's, the Internet was wonderful: Email, Gopher, WWW, FTP, etc.
People still use the internet to learn things and share information, now they can also use it to make money. Further even before the "unclean masses" had the internet there were games and many other noneducational things happening on BBSs, I can remember going to my dad's work on the weekends and playing Bolo, a multiplayer tank strategy game, in the late 80's.
In fact, those bits of the Internet are still there, but they've been overwhelmed and vastly out-numbered by people more interested in money than being an intelligent, compassionate human being.
You must not be looking in the right spots there are vast collections of knowledge still out there, the amount of crap has gone up but so has the amount of knowledge available, college courses, instructional videos on how repair and make almost anything, published research papers. It's ashame you think only the elite few should be allowed on the internet thus significantly limiting the amount of people that can reach that knowledge so it can stay "pure". Having a tool where just about everyone is able to reach this vast well of knowledge is well worth the make you penis larger spam, and all the other crap out there.
Do you know what stand your ground is? It's a law that protects a person from a trial if they claim it, it also protects a person from having to prove they ran away before using deadly force. How exactly is Zimmerman supposed to run away when he is being pummeled on the ground? Zimmerman did not stand his ground he was getting beaten on it, it is a simple self defense case. Remember there is no evidence on how the altercation started, did Trayvon attack Zimmerman from behind, did Zimmerman confront Trayvon, did they both come around a corner and bump into each other. It's simply not known we can only speculate, last I checked you can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yelling at someone is grounds to shoot them? The teens never went on White's property where White stood. Zimmerman followed Trayvon on public property, which is legal, authorities did not warn Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon a 911 operator did, which is legal, and he may or may not have provoked a fight, you and I can only speculate. Last I checked you can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
Look at the John White case Black man kills white Teen who did not even touch him, or straddle him raining blows down upon his head. The teen flinched when White pointed the gun at his head and White took it as a sign of aggression and shot him dead. John White was convicted of manslaughter and an illegal weapons charge his sentence was commuted to 5 months.
If they could prove that you went into a bar and provoked a fight then waited outside for him, you would defiantly be convicted of manslaughter and possibly murder, especially since you posted this. The prosecutor could not prove Zimmerman started the fight or was the aggressor just that he was legally following someone. The evidence shows that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman raining blows down upon his head when Zimmerman shot him. You can't PROVE Zimmerman did anything wrong all you can do is speculate. You can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a some what similar case with the races reversed you cold look at John White, he shot and killed a white teenager in the street outside his home. White's son had sent a message threatening rape to the victims sister and they went to confront him. White then pointed a gun in the teen's face and when the teen flinched, white took it as a sign of aggression and shot him dead. The teen never touched White which is the glaring difference between the two cases, white was charged and convicted with illegal weapons possession and manslaughter which he received 20 months to 4 years as a sentence. White's sentence was commuted to 5 months after the claims of racism. That is less then Plexico Burris got for shooting himself in the leg in the same state of New York.
The fact is that progress must be monitored, there simply is not a better way to measure progress. History has shown that you can't leave it up to teachers to evaluate their students. 21% of High School Graduates are functionally illiterate. National Adult Literacy Survey pdf page 43
Heh. Anyone who thinks teachers get a bunch of free time during those 'breaks' has never been (or dated) a teacher. They generally have to spend their holidays working off the clock, and a huge percentage of that '2 month vacation' goes to off the clock preparation for the next two semesters. School workloads assume that teachers will put in those extra hours, even if they officially do not.
Maybe a week before school starts teachers start preparing for the school year. Their lesson plans simply don't change that much from year to year to require a whole month to prepare. Even new teachers don't have a months worth of work as the lesson plans from the previous teacher is available.
Ore is defined by the price of the mineral and the cost to dig and refine it. If prices don't go up there simply is not enough ore to mine. Even though Lithium cobalt oxide costs about $30 a kg it's still too expensive to recycle and too risky to mine many mineral deposit locations. At $40 a kilogram many sites could open up and expect a ROI in 10 years. The price right now simply won't allow for mining in many areas that have stringent environmental controls which is why China is one of the largest suppliers. Economies of scale won't be enough to overcome the environmental regulation that are used to control such a dirty mining process.
The thing I can't understand is if the cross bracing is used to improve the partial tests why won't it stop too fast in the full frontal test. If you look at the video of the crash test you see that up to the front wheels is crushed which is where the frame starts there is not a lot of crumple space left, so I'm assuming they don't have much energy absorption left. The exact same can be said of the 5 star rated optima, but in the optima's case the majority of the crumple zone is in the sides. The amount of cross bracing required to spread the partial impact across the whole front crumple zone would render the crumple zone completely rigid. I just don't think it is possible to have the front cushioned enough to stop properly in a full crash and not lose the majority of the cushioning in a partial test.
Pleas explain to me how this is possible that the cross bracing would not be utilized in a full head on collision, causing the vehicle to stop to fast and injuring the crash test dummies?
The cross bracing is irreverent, for a full frontal crash, the one in which Tesla got a 5, if the cross bracing is too strong it will fail the front end crash test because it will stop too fast and the crash test dummies will show injuries. This did not happen so it is safe to assume the whole front of the car absorbed the energy properly. Now in an IC car they can't use the center to absorb the energy so the sides must do all the absorbing. My point is that in a partial head on collision an IC car is going to utilize more of its energy absorbing crumple zone then the Tesla so you would expect it to perform better in the partial head on collision.
Do you understand what the IIHS test is? they run the car into a brick wall with 25% of the bumper and 40% of the bumper striking the wall head on. In the NHTSA test Tesla used its whole front end to absorb the impact while an IC car can only use the sides because the engine is in the center. If Tessa's sides were as strong as an IC its front impact would be bad because it would stop too fast. Now in the IIHS partial front collision tests the IC car still can use half of its energy absorbing area in both the 25% and the 40% tests. The Tesla will only be able to use 25% and 40% of it's energy absorbing area, I'm sure the sides of the Tesla are stronger then the center so it won't be a complete failure but there is no way it can perform as well as an IC car that also received a 5 star rating for the full frontal crash.
Actually Mercedes and Volvo, which have the some of the lowest fatality rates per mile driven do not get perfect scores on their NHTSA or IIHS tests, they just build safe cars. Tesla even admitted it changed the design of the front to perform better in the NHTSA frontal crash test.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does.
And why do you doubt that? What do you know that I don't? Did Tesla completely leave out the side panel impact zones or something? It sounds like you have some insight into specifically how they designed the car.
In a NHTSA test Tesla uses the whole front end to stop the car safely if the sides were as rigid as an IC car it would stop too fast causing injuries to the crash test dummies. The sides of the IC car absorb the collision because the engine is in the middle and it cannot absorb it. When Tesla gets into a partial head on collision it won't have the whole center area too absorb energy, IC cars are built not to rely on the center so partial tests have less variance from full frontal impacts because they are still using the same structure to stop the car.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario
How is someone driving head-on into something else not a real world scenario? You're saying that never happens?
Head on accidents are rarely ever like the NHTSA test where the full front of the car is taking the impact, the vast majority are partial impacts, IIHS tests a 40% and a 25% which means 40% of the front bumper hit the wall and 25% of the front bumper hit the wall.
Tesla uses the middle of the car as a crumple zone, if its side panels were as stiff as an IC car it would stop too fast causing injuries in crash test dummies in the NHTSA test. This is not the case the Tesla crumpled the same amount as the Kia Optima and was rated the same, since the Kia can not have crumple zones where the engine is it's safe to assume its sides handle more of the impact then the Tesla. In a partial test the Optima is not losing as much of the crumple zone and structure as the Tesla.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does. It is similar to how hybrids EPA city mileage ratings were considerably off until a new system was used to rate them. The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario so those ratings must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Slashdot Mirror
I would keep my job mostly because I have no idea what I would do with so much free time.
I would say it's the opposite, professors that are not tenured have more pressure to produce results in their research so they can earn tenure. Their research, publications and teaching evaluations are all considered for tenure. Once tenured teaching evaluations have no effect on pay or text book deals, there is no motivation for a tenured professor to be a good teacher other then their own.
Not just beards, neck beards.
The price of sending letters has gone up for three reasons one it was under priced before privatization happened, two the cost of the letter needs to have an ROI for the owners, they need to make their money back, thirdly electronic means have reduced the volume meaning that most facilities are way too large, all that overhead has to be covered by a smaller number of letters.
A simple fish tank can be turned into a clean room so that's not a big deal, trying to desolder 100 pins spaced 0.01" apart then resoldering them, unless you have a 0.1 mill precision soldering robot it is impossible, you can't even buy wire thin enough to do it by hand.
So you've never had a hard disk controller failure then?
What makes you think you can't take FLASH devices and access them in a similar way to platters? Just like with platters, you won't be able to access data on any damaged portions but unlike with platters it is unlikely that the platters will trash the read/write heads of the new drive.
I don't know what your talking about it's very easy to desolder a couple hundred pins on a board, then install a new chip and resolder the new chip back in. That's just as easy as popping off the back of the HD removing a couple a screws and pulling out the platter.
Here are just a few facts that contradict your idiotic rambling.
Regarding the 1%ers only 9% of their net-worth came from inheritance (Federal Reserve data study conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff).
67% of millionaires are self made, 1/3 of respondents were born outside the US or were 1st generation citizens (BMO Private Bank study).
The fact is you are unsuccessful because of you, not the man holding you down, as soon as you take responsibility for your own success or failure you will start doing much better.
No, the Internet used to be ad-free.
If you recall that was when the internet was subsidized an only available to very few. So instead of paying for the services that a few people can utilize with money the government confiscated from people it is now paid for by companies trying to sell a product and available to everyone.
People used to use the Internet to learn things, and to share information with other people. Until the unwashed massed got to it in the mid 90's, the Internet was wonderful: Email, Gopher, WWW, FTP, etc.
People still use the internet to learn things and share information, now they can also use it to make money. Further even before the "unclean masses" had the internet there were games and many other noneducational things happening on BBSs, I can remember going to my dad's work on the weekends and playing Bolo, a multiplayer tank strategy game, in the late 80's.
In fact, those bits of the Internet are still there, but they've been overwhelmed and vastly out-numbered by people more interested in money than being an intelligent, compassionate human being.
You must not be looking in the right spots there are vast collections of knowledge still out there, the amount of crap has gone up but so has the amount of knowledge available, college courses, instructional videos on how repair and make almost anything, published research papers. It's ashame you think only the elite few should be allowed on the internet thus significantly limiting the amount of people that can reach that knowledge so it can stay "pure". Having a tool where just about everyone is able to reach this vast well of knowledge is well worth the make you penis larger spam, and all the other crap out there.
Do you know what stand your ground is? It's a law that protects a person from a trial if they claim it, it also protects a person from having to prove they ran away before using deadly force. How exactly is Zimmerman supposed to run away when he is being pummeled on the ground? Zimmerman did not stand his ground he was getting beaten on it, it is a simple self defense case. Remember there is no evidence on how the altercation started, did Trayvon attack Zimmerman from behind, did Zimmerman confront Trayvon, did they both come around a corner and bump into each other. It's simply not known we can only speculate, last I checked you can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yelling at someone is grounds to shoot them? The teens never went on White's property where White stood. Zimmerman followed Trayvon on public property, which is legal, authorities did not warn Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon a 911 operator did, which is legal, and he may or may not have provoked a fight, you and I can only speculate. Last I checked you can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
Look at the John White case Black man kills white Teen who did not even touch him, or straddle him raining blows down upon his head. The teen flinched when White pointed the gun at his head and White took it as a sign of aggression and shot him dead. John White was convicted of manslaughter and an illegal weapons charge his sentence was commuted to 5 months.
If they could prove that you went into a bar and provoked a fight then waited outside for him, you would defiantly be convicted of manslaughter and possibly murder, especially since you posted this. The prosecutor could not prove Zimmerman started the fight or was the aggressor just that he was legally following someone. The evidence shows that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman raining blows down upon his head when Zimmerman shot him. You can't PROVE Zimmerman did anything wrong all you can do is speculate. You can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a some what similar case with the races reversed you cold look at John White, he shot and killed a white teenager in the street outside his home. White's son had sent a message threatening rape to the victims sister and they went to confront him. White then pointed a gun in the teen's face and when the teen flinched, white took it as a sign of aggression and shot him dead. The teen never touched White which is the glaring difference between the two cases, white was charged and convicted with illegal weapons possession and manslaughter which he received 20 months to 4 years as a sentence. White's sentence was commuted to 5 months after the claims of racism. That is less then Plexico Burris got for shooting himself in the leg in the same state of New York.
The fact is that progress must be monitored, there simply is not a better way to measure progress. History has shown that you can't leave it up to teachers to evaluate their students. 21% of High School Graduates are functionally illiterate. National Adult Literacy Survey pdf page 43
Heh. Anyone who thinks teachers get a bunch of free time during those 'breaks' has never been (or dated) a teacher. They generally have to spend their holidays working off the clock, and a huge percentage of that '2 month vacation' goes to off the clock preparation for the next two semesters. School workloads assume that teachers will put in those extra hours, even if they officially do not.
Maybe a week before school starts teachers start preparing for the school year. Their lesson plans simply don't change that much from year to year to require a whole month to prepare. Even new teachers don't have a months worth of work as the lesson plans from the previous teacher is available.
Ore is defined by the price of the mineral and the cost to dig and refine it. If prices don't go up there simply is not enough ore to mine. Even though Lithium cobalt oxide costs about $30 a kg it's still too expensive to recycle and too risky to mine many mineral deposit locations. At $40 a kilogram many sites could open up and expect a ROI in 10 years. The price right now simply won't allow for mining in many areas that have stringent environmental controls which is why China is one of the largest suppliers. Economies of scale won't be enough to overcome the environmental regulation that are used to control such a dirty mining process.
The thing I can't understand is if the cross bracing is used to improve the partial tests why won't it stop too fast in the full frontal test. If you look at the video of the crash test you see that up to the front wheels is crushed which is where the frame starts there is not a lot of crumple space left, so I'm assuming they don't have much energy absorption left. The exact same can be said of the 5 star rated optima, but in the optima's case the majority of the crumple zone is in the sides. The amount of cross bracing required to spread the partial impact across the whole front crumple zone would render the crumple zone completely rigid. I just don't think it is possible to have the front cushioned enough to stop properly in a full crash and not lose the majority of the cushioning in a partial test.
Pleas explain to me how this is possible that the cross bracing would not be utilized in a full head on collision, causing the vehicle to stop to fast and injuring the crash test dummies?
The cross bracing is irreverent, for a full frontal crash, the one in which Tesla got a 5, if the cross bracing is too strong it will fail the front end crash test because it will stop too fast and the crash test dummies will show injuries. This did not happen so it is safe to assume the whole front of the car absorbed the energy properly. Now in an IC car they can't use the center to absorb the energy so the sides must do all the absorbing. My point is that in a partial head on collision an IC car is going to utilize more of its energy absorbing crumple zone then the Tesla so you would expect it to perform better in the partial head on collision.
Do you understand what the IIHS test is? they run the car into a brick wall with 25% of the bumper and 40% of the bumper striking the wall head on. In the NHTSA test Tesla used its whole front end to absorb the impact while an IC car can only use the sides because the engine is in the center. If Tessa's sides were as strong as an IC its front impact would be bad because it would stop too fast. Now in the IIHS partial front collision tests the IC car still can use half of its energy absorbing area in both the 25% and the 40% tests. The Tesla will only be able to use 25% and 40% of it's energy absorbing area, I'm sure the sides of the Tesla are stronger then the center so it won't be a complete failure but there is no way it can perform as well as an IC car that also received a 5 star rating for the full frontal crash.
Actually Mercedes and Volvo, which have the some of the lowest fatality rates per mile driven do not get perfect scores on their NHTSA or IIHS tests, they just build safe cars. Tesla even admitted it changed the design of the front to perform better in the NHTSA frontal crash test.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does.
And why do you doubt that? What do you know that I don't? Did Tesla completely leave out the side panel impact zones or something? It sounds like you have some insight into specifically how they designed the car.
In a NHTSA test Tesla uses the whole front end to stop the car safely if the sides were as rigid as an IC car it would stop too fast causing injuries to the crash test dummies. The sides of the IC car absorb the collision because the engine is in the middle and it cannot absorb it. When Tesla gets into a partial head on collision it won't have the whole center area too absorb energy, IC cars are built not to rely on the center so partial tests have less variance from full frontal impacts because they are still using the same structure to stop the car.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario
How is someone driving head-on into something else not a real world scenario? You're saying that never happens?
Head on accidents are rarely ever like the NHTSA test where the full front of the car is taking the impact, the vast majority are partial impacts, IIHS tests a 40% and a 25% which means 40% of the front bumper hit the wall and 25% of the front bumper hit the wall.
Tesla uses the middle of the car as a crumple zone, if its side panels were as stiff as an IC car it would stop too fast causing injuries in crash test dummies in the NHTSA test. This is not the case the Tesla crumpled the same amount as the Kia Optima and was rated the same, since the Kia can not have crumple zones where the engine is it's safe to assume its sides handle more of the impact then the Tesla. In a partial test the Optima is not losing as much of the crumple zone and structure as the Tesla.
Another example of government tyranny.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does. It is similar to how hybrids EPA city mileage ratings were considerably off until a new system was used to rate them. The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario so those ratings must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%
And the other 50% of the combustion engine is sitting in your lap. Or what's left of your lap. But lower numbers = safety!
You read that wrong Tesla will only be able to use 40% of its crumple zone the other 60% will not be utilized or lost in the 40% test.