As a student at one of the named universities, I can only hope, for their sake and for the students', that the schools take a good hard look at their situations and view their internet account holders as paying customers and not criminals upon first accusation (looking at you, University of Kansas!). Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent.
"...the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists."
Right, until they redefine "terrorist." Or change the rules. Or just break the rules they have, and then label anyone who calls them out on it as "un-American." This sucks; Something's gotta give eventually, right?
Inkjet ink works out to be more expensive, by volume, than the most expensive Bollinger champagne
A/. article had a post that linked here in April. It's an article (in Swedish) saying that only substance (except for crazy stuff like antimatter) more expensive per unit volume than OEM printer ink is pure Turkish heroin. If THAT doesn't put things into perspective, I don't know what will.
(Disclaimer: IAOASSSTIABBMS [I am only a social scientist, so this is a bit beyond me at times)
What this post's GP is getting at, I think, is that they're using a lump of known mass to define the very unit of mass. Using your duck analogy, I think the more on-point description would be: a measurer is attempting to define the duck as a unit of mass (note that this doesn't require measuring the mass of the duck; whatever result is obtained, the duck will have a mass of 1 Duck). Using weights of a known mass to do this, then, is absurd, because whatever mass the weights have would have to be measured in terms of Ducks, but the measurer hasn't yet defined the Duck. So a sort of circular dependency is created.
Feel free to correct me if my reasoning is wrong (it may well be).
Amongst planets, those which have an orbit centered on a star (regular planets) versus those which do not (irregular planets).
That definition can't hold, because the barycenter of the Jupiter/Sun system lies outside the sun itself. Surely you would consider Jupiter a regular planet, but your definition makes it irregular. My idea: planets should be defined as being sufficiently massive to be essentially round, and having an path through space which is always concave to the star. Now, Earth's moon has this characteristic as well (unique in our solar system, this would make Earth and the "moon" a double planet system), but I think perpetual orbital concavity makes more sense than barycenter location.
(Although I admit that I ultimately think that these definitions are completely subjective and of little if any use.)
This mission would (as far as I'm aware) also be the first man-made object to orbit a dwarf planet at any time, even before the dwarf planet designation was created. Which reminds me: should Ceres still be referred to as an asteroid, as it has been named a dwarf planet recently?
Fair enough. but I have issues with other things mentioned in TFA. Good freeware is available for basically anything, although it takes a bit more looking than with, say Windows. Someone else already mentioned MacPorts, Version Tracker, and Fink for this purpose. And I can't make sense of the comment about peripherals. It's not as if, with a Windows computer, if a game controller breaks, another one just magically appears for free. (Note that I'm not among the Linux-using enlightened here, and that very well may happen using Linux.:-) The fact that you need to buy replacement peripherals for Macs is not at all unique.
Sheesh, just when you think that Boston's government might have learned its lesson from this whole debacle, now they're doing something even dumber and more reprehensible by censoring? What a disgrace.
Where I go to college, one of my professors (in a social science) has a standing bet with all his students: if we ever have to write a term paper for our job in the real world (i.e., not academia), he'll donate $25 to the charity of our choice. He's been teaching since the 1970s and has never had to pay up. Whatever papers he writes, he insists on being done in a memorandum format, with no cover pages or in-text cites, and MAYBE something akin to a references page on the end. The focus is much more about getting facts on paper from whatever sources we deem suitable, not doing elaborate research to look impressive.
Another benefit of the memo style over a term paper is that we can't be long-winded. We're given a maximum page length, not a minimum (usually around four to five pages), into which we have to cram 15 or so term-paper-pages' worth of material. It's surprisingly difficult, but (according to him; I'm not yet in the real world full-time) that kind of skill is vastly important and not taught enough. Real-world types: does this sound accurate (and/or wise)?
Open iTunes, Safari and Mail. All three of these programs are Apple's own, and they're among the ones most likely to be used by Mac OS X users. So why do all three of them look different?
I always figured the reason Apple decided to vary the look of some of their app windows was that, if you're a user who uses Exposé a lot (as I am), it's extremely helpful to be able to immediately identify which windows you want by their shape and color scheme and not by having to look within the mini-window to see what's inside. This is especially helpful if you keep so many windows floating around that the representions in Exposé are tiny. If I want to switch to Mail.app, I just look for the (IMHO) ugliest window on the screen, instead of peering around 20+ (at times) identical-looking windows to see what's what.
I'd hate this. The main feature that differentiates the iPod from anything else is the clickwheel. Replacing it with anything else, even a "virtual" wheel, is a Bad Idea. The whole point is tactile feedback. With a touch-screen control, I don't really know if the iPod "heard" what I was telling it. It would make me feel disconnected from the device, which is exactly what Apple tries to eliminate. With real feedback that I can feel (and hear, if it's in a quiet environment), it's much more inuitive and less difficult to use. And as another poster mentioned, it would be damn near impossible to use blind, like if it's in a pocket or something. I just can't imagine that Jobs and Ives would give the go-ahead to this idea. It's too big of a coneptual leap, and it makes the iPod HARDER to use, not easier.
Isn't it kind of a moot point? I mean, has it been held in any court in your (or any) jurisdiction that EULA's are at all binding? Not trolling, actually curious. Are EULA's binding in a court? If they aren't, who cares what it says? I can understand the point of honor here, but I wouldn't let it keep me from getting much-needed upgrades.
Not disagreeing, just elaborating with the theory that I heard (in an astronomy class).
The theory as I understand it is that shortly after the Big Bang, space itself for some reason underwent a sudden, extremely fast acceleration, many many times faster than the speed of light. After a time (I don't recall the numbvers involved), the expansion slowed back down to roughly the speed it is now. IIRC, when the Universe slowed its expansion back down, its radius was millions of times larger than it would have been if it had expanded "at the speed of light," whatever that means exactly. So it makes sense that that radius is still larger than speed-of-light logic may dictate. Crazy thing, space. If only there were some way to take advantage of spacial expansion as some sort of means of transportation, we could go places very fast indeed.
Yep. At my university (Case Western Reserve), we have washers and dryers in every dorm that are connected to the internet so that one can check on their progress in minutes to end of cycle on a webpage, one page to each dorm. One can also check to see which machines, if any, are free. In theory, they're also supposed to email/text message us when they're done, but they never seen to implement that. I think the company that makes the systems (I forget the name) does the same type of thing to a lot of colleges, and probably apartment complexes too, as you said. There's nothing more aggravating than someone emptying out a machine so that they can use it; this cuts down on that issue significantly, but there are still some people who put their laundry in and go to class all day with their clothes in a machine. I guess tech can never get rid of jerks entirely.
I wholeheartedly agree. Europeans tend to work less often (shorter hours, more vacation) and work with less stress, more relaxed than Americans, yet their economy is strong. Why, I don't know, I'm not an economist. But what I don't understand is why Americans (and I'm one myself) take such pride in working their asses off, sometimes to the point of having no real life outside work. Wouldn't our workers be better workers if they weren't so stressed and could have actual lives? Too many companies seem to think that employees exist solely for their benefit, and treat them accordingly. Happier workers would produce a better work environment, which I think would result in better products or services. And I think it all goes back to Americans working too hard.
FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal.
No, I think the act itself should be illegal. The whole point of being able to restrict some types of speech is to avoid the type of panic that would be caused by yelling "fire" in a theater. Once the panic has been started and people start to get hurt, it's too late. At some point, the authorities have to be able to stop it before it happens. So the act itself, and the probable panic it would cause, is made illegal, rightfully in my eyes.
It's worth noting for completeness that Justice Holmes (I think) was only talking about speech that had no real value whatsoever, like, well, yelling "fire" when there's no fire. In the case in question here, it doesn't look like the kid even did that, he only said one thing which could be possibly construed as a vague threat. That's not enough to punish the kid, at least through school channels. In any event, this will be a really interesting case to watch unfold, to see what schools can do about outside-of-school but related-to-school conduct.
the two empowered sides who are *entirely* unable to create solutions for the problems we have.
And what makes you think that with a, say, 5- or 6-party legislature, Congress will be able to make decisions? If we have that situation, we may very well have all the parties bickering over details or amendments of laws, and then NOTHING will get passed. I agree with you that the two major parties don't give us as wide a range of choices as I (and you) would like, but you have to look at reality as well as theory. We as a culture are so used to a 2-party system that anything different would never fly.
Right, Christian Science is a branch of Christianity devoted to the belief that their intense belief in God, not medicine or doctors, will cure them if they get sick. I'm not sure, but I suspect they would seek medical attention if, say, they broke their leg or something, so that it could be set and casted. But that sort of thing is the extent of professional medical attention that they receive, IIRC. The CSM is well-known for being an especially balanced and professional news source.
(BTW, I'm not a Christian Scientist, and I don't work for CSM)
Slashdot Mirror
As a student at one of the named universities, I can only hope, for their sake and for the students', that the schools take a good hard look at their situations and view their internet account holders as paying customers and not criminals upon first accusation (looking at you, University of Kansas!). Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent.
"...the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists."
Right, until they redefine "terrorist." Or change the rules. Or just break the rules they have, and then label anyone who calls them out on it as "un-American." This sucks; Something's gotta give eventually, right?
Physicists get hadrons!
A /. article had a post that linked here in April. It's an article (in Swedish) saying that only substance (except for crazy stuff like antimatter) more expensive per unit volume than OEM printer ink is pure Turkish heroin. If THAT doesn't put things into perspective, I don't know what will.
For the curious, it appears that this post's parent is referring to the Kodak EASYSHARE 5100 All-in-One Printer.
(Disclaimer: IAOASSSTIABBMS [I am only a social scientist, so this is a bit beyond me at times)
What this post's GP is getting at, I think, is that they're using a lump of known mass to define the very unit of mass. Using your duck analogy, I think the more on-point description would be: a measurer is attempting to define the duck as a unit of mass (note that this doesn't require measuring the mass of the duck; whatever result is obtained, the duck will have a mass of 1 Duck). Using weights of a known mass to do this, then, is absurd, because whatever mass the weights have would have to be measured in terms of Ducks, but the measurer hasn't yet defined the Duck. So a sort of circular dependency is created.
Feel free to correct me if my reasoning is wrong (it may well be).
That definition can't hold, because the barycenter of the Jupiter/Sun system lies outside the sun itself. Surely you would consider Jupiter a regular planet, but your definition makes it irregular. My idea: planets should be defined as being sufficiently massive to be essentially round, and having an path through space which is always concave to the star. Now, Earth's moon has this characteristic as well (unique in our solar system, this would make Earth and the "moon" a double planet system), but I think perpetual orbital concavity makes more sense than barycenter location.
(Although I admit that I ultimately think that these definitions are completely subjective and of little if any use.)
I would if Eros were a dwarf planet. Quoth Wikipedia: "Three dwarf planets are currently recognized: Ceres, Pluto and Eris."
Eris and Eros are close in name, but Eros is most definitely an asteroid, and not a dwarf planet.
This mission would (as far as I'm aware) also be the first man-made object to orbit a dwarf planet at any time, even before the dwarf planet designation was created. Which reminds me: should Ceres still be referred to as an asteroid, as it has been named a dwarf planet recently?
Fair enough. but I have issues with other things mentioned in TFA. Good freeware is available for basically anything, although it takes a bit more looking than with, say Windows. Someone else already mentioned MacPorts, Version Tracker, and Fink for this purpose. And I can't make sense of the comment about peripherals. It's not as if, with a Windows computer, if a game controller breaks, another one just magically appears for free. (Note that I'm not among the Linux-using enlightened here, and that very well may happen using Linux. :-) The fact that you need to buy replacement peripherals for Macs is not at all unique.
Sheesh, just when you think that Boston's government might have learned its lesson from this whole debacle, now they're doing something even dumber and more reprehensible by censoring? What a disgrace.
Another benefit of the memo style over a term paper is that we can't be long-winded. We're given a maximum page length, not a minimum (usually around four to five pages), into which we have to cram 15 or so term-paper-pages' worth of material. It's surprisingly difficult, but (according to him; I'm not yet in the real world full-time) that kind of skill is vastly important and not taught enough. Real-world types: does this sound accurate (and/or wise)?
I always figured the reason Apple decided to vary the look of some of their app windows was that, if you're a user who uses Exposé a lot (as I am), it's extremely helpful to be able to immediately identify which windows you want by their shape and color scheme and not by having to look within the mini-window to see what's inside. This is especially helpful if you keep so many windows floating around that the representions in Exposé are tiny. If I want to switch to Mail.app, I just look for the (IMHO) ugliest window on the screen, instead of peering around 20+ (at times) identical-looking windows to see what's what.
I'd hate this. The main feature that differentiates the iPod from anything else is the clickwheel. Replacing it with anything else, even a "virtual" wheel, is a Bad Idea. The whole point is tactile feedback. With a touch-screen control, I don't really know if the iPod "heard" what I was telling it. It would make me feel disconnected from the device, which is exactly what Apple tries to eliminate. With real feedback that I can feel (and hear, if it's in a quiet environment), it's much more inuitive and less difficult to use. And as another poster mentioned, it would be damn near impossible to use blind, like if it's in a pocket or something. I just can't imagine that Jobs and Ives would give the go-ahead to this idea. It's too big of a coneptual leap, and it makes the iPod HARDER to use, not easier.
Story with pictures here, and videos here. Looks pretty neat, but I'm not too sure how practical it will be to use.
Isn't it kind of a moot point? I mean, has it been held in any court in your (or any) jurisdiction that EULA's are at all binding? Not trolling, actually curious. Are EULA's binding in a court? If they aren't, who cares what it says? I can understand the point of honor here, but I wouldn't let it keep me from getting much-needed upgrades.
The theory as I understand it is that shortly after the Big Bang, space itself for some reason underwent a sudden, extremely fast acceleration, many many times faster than the speed of light. After a time (I don't recall the numbvers involved), the expansion slowed back down to roughly the speed it is now. IIRC, when the Universe slowed its expansion back down, its radius was millions of times larger than it would have been if it had expanded "at the speed of light," whatever that means exactly. So it makes sense that that radius is still larger than speed-of-light logic may dictate. Crazy thing, space. If only there were some way to take advantage of spacial expansion as some sort of means of transportation, we could go places very fast indeed.
That's it! I've had it with the draconian laws put onto us by the US! I'm moving to Canada! Oh, wait. Shit.
Yep. At my university (Case Western Reserve), we have washers and dryers in every dorm that are connected to the internet so that one can check on their progress in minutes to end of cycle on a webpage, one page to each dorm. One can also check to see which machines, if any, are free. In theory, they're also supposed to email/text message us when they're done, but they never seen to implement that. I think the company that makes the systems (I forget the name) does the same type of thing to a lot of colleges, and probably apartment complexes too, as you said. There's nothing more aggravating than someone emptying out a machine so that they can use it; this cuts down on that issue significantly, but there are still some people who put their laundry in and go to class all day with their clothes in a machine. I guess tech can never get rid of jerks entirely.
Win98 is broken? That's crazy talk, I've been using it for years, and I've never had any prob#$*(*^^(*&!@ NO CARRIER
Damn, and just when my faith in our justice system had been fully restored...
I wholeheartedly agree. Europeans tend to work less often (shorter hours, more vacation) and work with less stress, more relaxed than Americans, yet their economy is strong. Why, I don't know, I'm not an economist. But what I don't understand is why Americans (and I'm one myself) take such pride in working their asses off, sometimes to the point of having no real life outside work. Wouldn't our workers be better workers if they weren't so stressed and could have actual lives? Too many companies seem to think that employees exist solely for their benefit, and treat them accordingly. Happier workers would produce a better work environment, which I think would result in better products or services. And I think it all goes back to Americans working too hard.
No, I think the act itself should be illegal. The whole point of being able to restrict some types of speech is to avoid the type of panic that would be caused by yelling "fire" in a theater. Once the panic has been started and people start to get hurt, it's too late. At some point, the authorities have to be able to stop it before it happens. So the act itself, and the probable panic it would cause, is made illegal, rightfully in my eyes.
It's worth noting for completeness that Justice Holmes (I think) was only talking about speech that had no real value whatsoever, like, well, yelling "fire" when there's no fire. In the case in question here, it doesn't look like the kid even did that, he only said one thing which could be possibly construed as a vague threat. That's not enough to punish the kid, at least through school channels. In any event, this will be a really interesting case to watch unfold, to see what schools can do about outside-of-school but related-to-school conduct.
(IANAL, but I'm working on that).
And what makes you think that with a, say, 5- or 6-party legislature, Congress will be able to make decisions? If we have that situation, we may very well have all the parties bickering over details or amendments of laws, and then NOTHING will get passed. I agree with you that the two major parties don't give us as wide a range of choices as I (and you) would like, but you have to look at reality as well as theory. We as a culture are so used to a 2-party system that anything different would never fly.
Right, Christian Science is a branch of Christianity devoted to the belief that their intense belief in God, not medicine or doctors, will cure them if they get sick. I'm not sure, but I suspect they would seek medical attention if, say, they broke their leg or something, so that it could be set and casted. But that sort of thing is the extent of professional medical attention that they receive, IIRC. The CSM is well-known for being an especially balanced and professional news source.
(BTW, I'm not a Christian Scientist, and I don't work for CSM)