Funny you should mention that, some people are concerned about a lack of male teachers. There is some research that more male teachers are needed to get boys engaged in the classroom. There is no question but that my son connected best with his only male teacher and I kind of regret there not being more.
Oddly when I was growing up in a smaller (but not small) town I had plenty of male teachers, and factually I remember them better than the female ones also (I am male of course). I imagine girls may have the same thing, so a mix of teachers seems to be best. Also there is some concern about a lack of males in some social service or assistive positions as some clients connect better with men. This stuff just never makes the headlines for some reason.
Which kind of brings me to an interesting point. There are two ways to get more women doing X, recruitment programs for women to do X or programs for more men to do Y (which women do now). I can more or less understand attempts to recruit more women into areas where there historically have been few, I doubt we will ever have or should have equal numbers BUT you need to make sure you are not overlooking potentially good candidates. However I can't understand why we mostly focus on programs for women. It is as if our society is saying, traditional female jobs are worthless.
After reading Haught letter, I totally want to see the video now. No wonder he was so upset, he thought it was going to be an evening of him cherry picking unresolved issues or errors in science to show, in his own words, "scientism is logically incoherent". Instead he found he had to defend Religion from the same kind of arguments!
And of course, when you set the kind of bar Science has to jump over all the time for anything else, the anything else, religion in this case, can't make the jump.
I am sure they have plenty of members who are in no danger from Drug Cartels, but they realized that the people who they are up against are too brutal and indiscriminate. If the Cartels fight back they will probably kill more innocents than opponents, but that is the whole point really. Better not to stick your finger in their eye to needlessly provoke them.
Best to share their information securely with the FBI and Mexican police. (well, where you can trust the Mexican police anyway). I don’t like everything my government does, but I HATE what the cartels do!
We got to the moon, but once we put the flag in to prove we could do it, we never bothered to do it again. Too expensive, and while we learned a lot doing it, actually going to the moon itself doesn't do much.
OTOH our economic activities in space (satellitess mostly) have been humming along just fine. One of the great dangers of doing "big things" just to prove you can do them is they are build on a foundation of sand. When you do useful things, they are built on a firmer foundation.
I believe in governement support as seed money to do big useful things, but I have less interest in expensive national pride programs.
Guns, what is worse is the Government may also require you to pick up the gun you bought, go to another country and possibly get killed. Come to think of it, lots of the money taken by the Government from me goes to private corporations against my desires.
Sill I have to agree with your point, socialized medicine would probably be better than the insurance mandate, that way the government would be the middleman and I wouldn’t be giving it to corporations directly with no choice in which one.
I agree the government doesn’t and shouldn’t own 100% of what your produce, but at the same time if you live in society you are required to contribute to advance our societies chosen goals. So I can’t agree that you should be able to opt out of anything you don’t like, unless you are ready to opt out of being an American. If you think health care is a bad plan, we have a process for that, but you give up some autonomy by joining a society. You argument is flawed and the SC will find it so also in a 5-4 ruling.
I have over simplified a little bit maybe, for example I should have said “decidable” math, but look up Turing machine and Theory of computation. It was the theoretical groundwork to prove computers could work, and is more or less is the core of what allowed Turing to help build some of the first computers.
From Wikipedia "Turing's approach is considerably more accessible and intuitive. It was also novel in its notion of a 'Universal (Turing) Machine', the idea that such a machine could perform the tasks of any other machine, or in other words, is provably capable of computing anything that is computable"
Now the key here is to understand that for a digital process to fully replicate an analog process, it has to take all possible inputs and give the exact same outputs. So the statement means it IS possible for a digital Turing Machine to replicate all actions of "any other machine" (in this case the human brain). At that point the Turing machine and human brain would become indistinguishable via the Turing Test, indeed it is now pretty easy to understand where the Turing Test came from and what it really is.
The only out from this is to show that the human brain performs functions that are "not decidable", which some people have asserted, but of course no one has proved.
Remember that one of Turing’s proofs was that any math, and therefore any analog process, can be duplicated as a digital process. Therefore once the process is fully and exactly replicated digitally, it IS now the same process! So it is a mathmatical proof that once it acts the same, it is the same.
Cleverbot has not passed the Turing test. Properly run the Turing test would identify humans with 100% accuracy (assuming they were not trying to pretend to be robots). It would be performed by specialists under controlled circumstances. These Turing competitions are more for fun than true science, (but are kind of cool)
The issue the Turing test is supposed to address is the question of when a computer can be said to be truly "thinking" (whatever that is). Turing is asserting that if the computer’s responses become indistinguishable from a humans, for all intents and purposes it IS now a human mind. He is probably further asserting that once the computer properly replicates a human mind, if you think the computer isn’t thinking, you may as well say you are not thinking either, sine the computer is by definition emulating the same processes you are performing.
Or as I like to say, in the future it doesn’t matter if the robots are truly thinking or just simulated thinking if they are the ones with the ray guns!
No doubt you use different parts of your brain for telling the truth vs. lying and disabling the associated part or conduit would make lying harder. But unless something is lost in translation, this story is hype. It isn't a simple on/off switch.
Using redstone in Minecraft is more like building a circuit board by hand to do some task than like programing a mini app, and not using ICs but only single components. Or maybe it might be like building a device to play tic tac toe out of Legos, which has been done and reported here BTW. Not that it is more l33t than programing, just interesting and different,
Now if they could only figure out that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and therefore does not fall under the Clean Air Act either...
Well, anything is a pollutant in high enough quantities, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The climate WILL change. If not from AWG, then from something else. Perhaps a meteor strike, or a massive volcano, or decreased/increased solar activity. Better to focus on creating an upwardly mobile society that can more easily adapt to these inevitable changes than to risk making society poorer and therefore less able to adapt. Within reason of course. Not to advocate for slash and burn in the name of economic expansion, but we're not ready to run our economies on windmills and horse manure yet.
Sigh, I don't know of many climate scientist who advocate ending all use of fossil fuels. In fact every proposal I see has to do with limiting growth of CO2 emission in the near term.
The hardest thing to get so many to understand is that climate change, indeed all pollution, is a balancing act. Yes there is a cost from reducing use of fossil fuels, but there is also a cost from retooling for new weather and other more human costs. Moving a farm, or switching from wheat to sugar cane isn't as simple as everyone seems to think. Worse yet, if you happen to live in one of the many physically smaller countries, if the good climate zone for what you are doing shifts to another country you are SOL.
And for additional fun, if you keep dumping massive amounts of CO2, you get these problems every year without end. Accelerating climate change is in no one’s best interest. Climate will change no matter what, but rate of change matters (FYI, climate change from metor strikes are kind of bad)! Plus our kids just might want us to save some of that fuel for them.
Ultimately this is supposed to be a technical question, comparing the costs of each path open to us. We need to compare our best scientific and economic models and make the most reasonable choices we can. But when one side is saying all the models provided by the scientists about climate change and effect are wrong, yet don’t provide any counter models for similar peer review, what is a reasoned person to think? It isn’t like the oil companies don’t have enough money to sponsor all the counter research they want, if only it would be submitted to peer review.
I just don’t buy that pollution is no problem so long as we make more money, and I think historical fact in on my side here. As near as I can tell, that is what you seem to be advocating.
I unfortunately know why Government agencies don't allow workers to buy their own cell phone for a small reimbursement. Salary, taxes and discovery.
While lots of workers need cell phones, lots don't. so there is a danger of it becoming the "government cell phone benefit". Further it ends up messing up taxes and contract/salary agreements, is it an additional benefit or not?
Worse yet is discovery. If you transact public business on private devices, does discovery apply? Are you breaking laws by texting instead of calling (avoiding the agency email server)? How do you edit out all the call records of personal stuff?
I wish there was a simple way around these problems, I like saving money too, but so far no one has found one.
So the accountability needs of the Government prevent us from saving money. It is too bad however.
The real reason NATO is involved is because for one of the few times in a long time, you have a vital resource, the "Internet" that literally can't be controlled and regulated by government entities effectively. Certainly not merely by physical force (unless you say no "Internet" at all) Worse yet, the people who run and understand the thing don't all buy in on national agendas and see their world, the "Internet" again, as largely without boarders and have a much higher belief in personal freedom (both of the liberal and conservative variety)
However it turns out no one can live without this "Internet" thing, of if you try you are just cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Needless to say, government are pretty terrified and perceive this as a huge threat to national security (agenda).
A wiser path would be to understand what you can and can't control and take steps to protect things you really care about within what you can do.
I am happy for him and wish he could have had his own hand fully working. But as a minimun shouldn't you get the ability to crush metal in your bare hand as a side benefit. And I don't mean a coke can.
The big problem is it isn't clear what information needs to be corrected or how effective the government will be at doing it vs. all of the other sources of information people have. If you have a brain in your head you know Wikipedia is more accurate than Conservepedia. But for those who choose the second, I don't think a Government web page explaining yet again how bad Conservepedia is will make any difference.
A better idea would be for the Government focusing on providing accurate information in the first place rather than "fixing" other sources inaccuracies. What if each government agencies communications department was giving a similar mandate and protection from political interference! Now that would be something I could really get behind. I do believe the government CAN give good, accurate and relevant information. It just needs to be given that mandate and isolation from political interference.
The nice thing about the Internet is, while there is plenty of wrong information out there, you can find accurate information more often than not if you try
In Clintons defense however, he is focusing more on how to do it than that it should be done.
The French Revolution (1789-1799) was over ten years after the US revolution. I admit there was LOTS of cross pollination between thinkers in France, England, etc. and the US, still bother to check your facts when you berate someone. Also, the US has plenty to be proud of in the invention of electronics, flight and so on from a practical standpoint. I think the industries that grew in the US are proof enough of that (part of the reason for US success is the US was willing to take people from lots of different countries early on, that is why we benefited so much from ideas from so many cultures, the US really IS the leader in that!)
Also all western nations can be a little proud of fighting against slavery and for rights for women. The US wasn’t the first to the party, but then again I don’t remember Europe ending worldwide slavery on their own either.
I try to give great leeway to people who leak for good reasons, because there is some outrage about a specific issue or to address a specific injustice. But in this case just too many things were leaked, was he really upset about and justified in every document that was leaked? There are just too many for that to be true. He MAY have a valid reason for some of the leaks, but went way overboard. To me, it is like a medical staff member leaking a hospitals entire records, case files, everything, because he wants to expose waste.
I have pondered this question for a while this is the best I can understand it.
By definition, observe means at minimum "interact with another object" whatever else it may mean also, be that wave or particle. Now you know how in QM we say that electrons become a wave "orbiting" the nucleus and that the “wave length” of electrons are simply resonance frequencies that “fit” in that particular potential energy well? OK, let me propose that the Proton is “observing” the electron and “forcing” it to exist in a particular way, to wit the famous quantum orbitals.
Now note, in practice every observational experiment a human can perform is effectively the same thing. We can create potential energy wells of different shapes and sizes and have different things happen when something enters, but every observation we make is really an interaction with another particle, and the potential energy field of that particle “forces” the waveform to conform to certain parameters. Change the shape of the potential energy field and you force the electron to take on different parameters (properties!).
Take for instance the famous electron two slit experiment. You get all these dots caused by a chemical reaction triggered by the electron, so we say “aha, this is where the electron hit!”. But no, it is really just a spot on a photographic plate, not an electron at all. You have no idea which electron, now presumably in the plate, actually created the spot, no way to find out and it may not be a sensible question in the first place! You set up a particular potential energy field in your electron/energy trap (or maybe more accurately the chemical on the plate did), thus the electron could only take a particular form when it interacted with the plate.
This also helps understand uncertainty, until you observe (force) a wave to exits in a particular orbital, or let’s face it, to have once existed, because observations destroys the previous state, why couldn’t it be a half strength wave is two orbitals, or maybe in all possible orbitals at once, though with different amounts of energy.
So, if you set up a mousetrap, don’t be surprised if you catch a mouse!
You know what, this is a good subject for me to propose my plan for world peace, yes really.
I feel like we should give cameras with video to everyone we can along with making internet connections available, maybe via satellite. Then people could video tape and post all the BS that goes on in the World. While I know this isn't a magic bullet, I can't help but think that people everywhere will think twice about shooting kids if they know for a fact their actions are likely to be recorded along with their face!
Cameras haven't ended violence in the US, but I know people are learning that they may end up on "candid camera".
1. $75K is enough money so you can confidently say to yourself you are doing pretty good. It is comfortably enough above the average salary so you just don't meet that many people who put your salary to shame, even if you meet enough people who make more.
2. It is enough money so you don't really have any money problems. Barring a serious health issue (which will make you unhappy anyway), if you are unable live within $75K it is probably a personal problem.
Well, I can't say for sure what "Obama-ites" are ignorant of, but apparently liberals are aware of the possible ethics issues. In fact I think that was kind of the point to the article in the first place.
As mentioned before, two email account are pretty much mandated by law. The only question is if there is circumvention of disclosure laws.
That said, wouldn't it be fair to judge on.
1. The results of the investigation - i.e. did anything even happen! 2. What was the extent? Was it purposeful? 3. How well the administration cooperates, according to neutral investigators. 4. Who was doing it- i.e. was it pervasive and/or at the top? 5. And finally, how the administration handles what is found out?
This is a request for an investigation, not a guilty verdict. Someone, somewhere in the Whitehouse may be doing something wrong (frankly, someone somewhere probably always is). Scale and top level involvement matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should mention that, some people are concerned about a lack of male teachers. There is some research that more male teachers are needed to get boys engaged in the classroom. There is no question but that my son connected best with his only male teacher and I kind of regret there not being more.
Oddly when I was growing up in a smaller (but not small) town I had plenty of male teachers, and factually I remember them better than the female ones also (I am male of course). I imagine girls may have the same thing, so a mix of teachers seems to be best. Also there is some concern about a lack of males in some social service or assistive positions as some clients connect better with men. This stuff just never makes the headlines for some reason.
Which kind of brings me to an interesting point. There are two ways to get more women doing X, recruitment programs for women to do X or programs for more men to do Y (which women do now). I can more or less understand attempts to recruit more women into areas where there historically have been few, I doubt we will ever have or should have equal numbers BUT you need to make sure you are not overlooking potentially good candidates. However I can't understand why we mostly focus on programs for women. It is as if our society is saying, traditional female jobs are worthless.
I swear this is the same exact experiment every nerdy Junior Highschooler thinks we should perform. Including myself.
After reading Haught letter, I totally want to see the video now. No wonder he was so upset, he thought it was going to be an evening of him cherry picking unresolved issues or errors in science to show, in his own words, "scientism is logically incoherent". Instead he found he had to defend Religion from the same kind of arguments!
And of course, when you set the kind of bar Science has to jump over all the time for anything else, the anything else, religion in this case, can't make the jump.
I am sure they have plenty of members who are in no danger from Drug Cartels, but they realized that the people who they are up against are too brutal and indiscriminate. If the Cartels fight back they will probably kill more innocents than opponents, but that is the whole point really. Better not to stick your finger in their eye to needlessly provoke them.
Best to share their information securely with the FBI and Mexican police. (well, where you can trust the Mexican police anyway). I don’t like everything my government does, but I HATE what the cartels do!
You will are already missed.
We got to the moon, but once we put the flag in to prove we could do it, we never bothered to do it again. Too expensive, and while we learned a lot doing it, actually going to the moon itself doesn't do much.
OTOH our economic activities in space (satellitess mostly) have been humming along just fine. One of the great dangers of doing "big things" just to prove you can do them is they are build on a foundation of sand. When you do useful things, they are built on a firmer foundation.
I believe in governement support as seed money to do big useful things, but I have less interest in expensive national pride programs.
LOL, and if you don't agree with what I say Americans think and don't vote the way I vote, you must not be an American. QED
Guns, what is worse is the Government may also require you to pick up the gun you bought, go to another country and possibly get killed. Come to think of it, lots of the money taken by the Government from me goes to private corporations against my desires.
Sill I have to agree with your point, socialized medicine would probably be better than the insurance mandate, that way the government would be the middleman and I wouldn’t be giving it to corporations directly with no choice in which one.
I agree the government doesn’t and shouldn’t own 100% of what your produce, but at the same time if you live in society you are required to contribute to advance our societies chosen goals. So I can’t agree that you should be able to opt out of anything you don’t like, unless you are ready to opt out of being an American. If you think health care is a bad plan, we have a process for that, but you give up some autonomy by joining a society. You argument is flawed and the SC will find it so also in a 5-4 ruling.
For the grand teddy bear
I have over simplified a little bit maybe, for example I should have said “decidable” math, but look up Turing machine and Theory of computation. It was the theoretical groundwork to prove computers could work, and is more or less is the core of what allowed Turing to help build some of the first computers.
From Wikipedia "Turing's approach is considerably more accessible and intuitive. It was also novel in its notion of a 'Universal (Turing) Machine', the idea that such a machine could perform the tasks of any other machine, or in other words, is provably capable of computing anything that is computable"
Now the key here is to understand that for a digital process to fully replicate an analog process, it has to take all possible inputs and give the exact same outputs. So the statement means it IS possible for a digital Turing Machine to replicate all actions of "any other machine" (in this case the human brain). At that point the Turing machine and human brain would become indistinguishable via the Turing Test, indeed it is now pretty easy to understand where the Turing Test came from and what it really is.
The only out from this is to show that the human brain performs functions that are "not decidable", which some people have asserted, but of course no one has proved.
Remember that one of Turing’s proofs was that any math, and therefore any analog process, can be duplicated as a digital process. Therefore once the process is fully and exactly replicated digitally, it IS now the same process! So it is a mathmatical proof that once it acts the same, it is the same.
Cleverbot has not passed the Turing test. Properly run the Turing test would identify humans with 100% accuracy (assuming they were not trying to pretend to be robots). It would be performed by specialists under controlled circumstances. These Turing competitions are more for fun than true science, (but are kind of cool)
The issue the Turing test is supposed to address is the question of when a computer can be said to be truly "thinking" (whatever that is). Turing is asserting that if the computer’s responses become indistinguishable from a humans, for all intents and purposes it IS now a human mind. He is probably further asserting that once the computer properly replicates a human mind, if you think the computer isn’t thinking, you may as well say you are not thinking either, sine the computer is by definition emulating the same processes you are performing.
Or as I like to say, in the future it doesn’t matter if the robots are truly thinking or just simulated thinking if they are the ones with the ray guns!
No doubt you use different parts of your brain for telling the truth vs. lying and disabling the associated part or conduit would make lying harder. But unless something is lost in translation, this story is hype. It isn't a simple on/off switch.
Using redstone in Minecraft is more like building a circuit board by hand to do some task than like programing a mini app, and not using ICs but only single components. Or maybe it might be like building a device to play tic tac toe out of Legos, which has been done and reported here BTW. Not that it is more l33t than programing, just interesting and different,
Now if they could only figure out that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and therefore does not fall under the Clean Air Act either...
Well, anything is a pollutant in high enough quantities, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The climate WILL change. If not from AWG, then from something else. Perhaps a meteor strike, or a massive volcano, or decreased/increased solar activity. Better to focus on creating an upwardly mobile society that can more easily adapt to these inevitable changes than to risk making society poorer and therefore less able to adapt. Within reason of course. Not to advocate for slash and burn in the name of economic expansion, but we're not ready to run our economies on windmills and horse manure yet.
Sigh, I don't know of many climate scientist who advocate ending all use of fossil fuels. In fact every proposal I see has to do with limiting growth of CO2 emission in the near term.
The hardest thing to get so many to understand is that climate change, indeed all pollution, is a balancing act. Yes there is a cost from reducing use of fossil fuels, but there is also a cost from retooling for new weather and other more human costs. Moving a farm, or switching from wheat to sugar cane isn't as simple as everyone seems to think. Worse yet, if you happen to live in one of the many physically smaller countries, if the good climate zone for what you are doing shifts to another country you are SOL.
And for additional fun, if you keep dumping massive amounts of CO2, you get these problems every year without end. Accelerating climate change is in no one’s best interest. Climate will change no matter what, but rate of change matters (FYI, climate change from metor strikes are kind of bad)! Plus our kids just might want us to save some of that fuel for them.
Ultimately this is supposed to be a technical question, comparing the costs of each path open to us. We need to compare our best scientific and economic models and make the most reasonable choices we can. But when one side is saying all the models provided by the scientists about climate change and effect are wrong, yet don’t provide any counter models for similar peer review, what is a reasoned person to think? It isn’t like the oil companies don’t have enough money to sponsor all the counter research they want, if only it would be submitted to peer review.
I just don’t buy that pollution is no problem so long as we make more money, and I think historical fact in on my side here. As near as I can tell, that is what you seem to be advocating.
I unfortunately know why Government agencies don't allow workers to buy their own cell phone for a small reimbursement. Salary, taxes and discovery.
While lots of workers need cell phones, lots don't. so there is a danger of it becoming the "government cell phone benefit". Further it ends up messing up taxes and contract/salary agreements, is it an additional benefit or not?
Worse yet is discovery. If you transact public business on private devices, does discovery apply? Are you breaking laws by texting instead of calling (avoiding the agency email server)? How do you edit out all the call records of personal stuff?
I wish there was a simple way around these problems, I like saving money too, but so far no one has found one.
So the accountability needs of the Government prevent us from saving money. It is too bad however.
The XBoxs I am sure are mostly for the troops.
The real reason NATO is involved is because for one of the few times in a long time, you have a vital resource, the "Internet" that literally can't be controlled and regulated by government entities effectively. Certainly not merely by physical force (unless you say no "Internet" at all) Worse yet, the people who run and understand the thing don't all buy in on national agendas and see their world, the "Internet" again, as largely without boarders and have a much higher belief in personal freedom (both of the liberal and conservative variety)
However it turns out no one can live without this "Internet" thing, of if you try you are just cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Needless to say, government are pretty terrified and perceive this as a huge threat to national security (agenda).
A wiser path would be to understand what you can and can't control and take steps to protect things you really care about within what you can do.
I am happy for him and wish he could have had his own hand fully working. But as a minimun shouldn't you get the ability to crush metal in your bare hand as a side benefit. And I don't mean a coke can.
The big problem is it isn't clear what information needs to be corrected or how effective the government will be at doing it vs. all of the other sources of information people have. If you have a brain in your head you know Wikipedia is more accurate than Conservepedia. But for those who choose the second, I don't think a Government web page explaining yet again how bad Conservepedia is will make any difference.
A better idea would be for the Government focusing on providing accurate information in the first place rather than "fixing" other sources inaccuracies. What if each government agencies communications department was giving a similar mandate and protection from political interference! Now that would be something I could really get behind. I do believe the government CAN give good, accurate and relevant information. It just needs to be given that mandate and isolation from political interference.
The nice thing about the Internet is, while there is plenty of wrong information out there, you can find accurate information more often than not if you try
In Clintons defense however, he is focusing more on how to do it than that it should be done.
- Introduction of Democracy to the modern world.
That was France.
The French Revolution (1789-1799) was over ten years after the US revolution. I admit there was LOTS of cross pollination between thinkers in France, England, etc. and the US, still bother to check your facts when you berate someone. Also, the US has plenty to be proud of in the invention of electronics, flight and so on from a practical standpoint. I think the industries that grew in the US are proof enough of that (part of the reason for US success is the US was willing to take people from lots of different countries early on, that is why we benefited so much from ideas from so many cultures, the US really IS the leader in that!)
Also all western nations can be a little proud of fighting against slavery and for rights for women. The US wasn’t the first to the party, but then again I don’t remember Europe ending worldwide slavery on their own either.
Sorry, I need to add, the HE in this case is the leaker. Wikileaks the site is really just an ANON service and I don't apply the same rules.
I try to give great leeway to people who leak for good reasons, because there is some outrage about a specific issue or to address a specific injustice. But in this case just too many things were leaked, was he really upset about and justified in every document that was leaked? There are just too many for that to be true. He MAY have a valid reason for some of the leaks, but went way overboard. To me, it is like a medical staff member leaking a hospitals entire records, case files, everything, because he wants to expose waste.
I have pondered this question for a while this is the best I can understand it.
By definition, observe means at minimum "interact with another object" whatever else it may mean also, be that wave or particle. Now you know how in QM we say that electrons become a wave "orbiting" the nucleus and that the “wave length” of electrons are simply resonance frequencies that “fit” in that particular potential energy well? OK, let me propose that the Proton is “observing” the electron and “forcing” it to exist in a particular way, to wit the famous quantum orbitals.
Now note, in practice every observational experiment a human can perform is effectively the same thing. We can create potential energy wells of different shapes and sizes and have different things happen when something enters, but every observation we make is really an interaction with another particle, and the potential energy field of that particle “forces” the waveform to conform to certain parameters. Change the shape of the potential energy field and you force the electron to take on different parameters (properties!).
Take for instance the famous electron two slit experiment. You get all these dots caused by a chemical reaction triggered by the electron, so we say “aha, this is where the electron hit!”. But no, it is really just a spot on a photographic plate, not an electron at all. You have no idea which electron, now presumably in the plate, actually created the spot, no way to find out and it may not be a sensible question in the first place! You set up a particular potential energy field in your electron/energy trap (or maybe more accurately the chemical on the plate did), thus the electron could only take a particular form when it interacted with the plate.
This also helps understand uncertainty, until you observe (force) a wave to exits in a particular orbital, or let’s face it, to have once existed, because observations destroys the previous state, why couldn’t it be a half strength wave is two orbitals, or maybe in all possible orbitals at once, though with different amounts of energy.
So, if you set up a mousetrap, don’t be surprised if you catch a mouse!
You know what, this is a good subject for me to propose my plan for world peace, yes really.
I feel like we should give cameras with video to everyone we can along with making internet connections available, maybe via satellite. Then people could video tape and post all the BS that goes on in the World. While I know this isn't a magic bullet, I can't help but think that people everywhere will think twice about shooting kids if they know for a fact their actions are likely to be recorded along with their face!
Cameras haven't ended violence in the US, but I know people are learning that they may end up on "candid camera".
Two reasons:
1. $75K is enough money so you can confidently say to yourself you are doing pretty good. It is comfortably enough above the average salary so you just don't meet that many people who put your salary to shame, even if you meet enough people who make more.
2. It is enough money so you don't really have any money problems. Barring a serious health issue (which will make you unhappy anyway), if you are unable live within $75K it is probably a personal problem.
Well, I can't say for sure what "Obama-ites" are ignorant of, but apparently liberals are aware of the possible ethics issues. In fact I think that was kind of the point to the article in the first place.
As mentioned before, two email account are pretty much mandated by law. The only question is if there is circumvention of disclosure laws.
That said, wouldn't it be fair to judge on.
1. The results of the investigation - i.e. did anything even happen!
2. What was the extent? Was it purposeful?
3. How well the administration cooperates, according to neutral investigators.
4. Who was doing it- i.e. was it pervasive and/or at the top?
5. And finally, how the administration handles what is found out?
This is a request for an investigation, not a guilty verdict. Someone, somewhere in the Whitehouse may be doing something wrong (frankly, someone somewhere probably always is). Scale and top level involvement matter.