Same reason why the older style of cutting it open with a scalpel would result in somebody being barred from being a fighter pilot. The technology they use is somewhat different, it's akin to grinding a lens down to change its shape.
The issue is that they cut a flap in the cornea to do the work, and there's a small chance that excessive g-forces could cause it to flap open.
It's not something they like doing, but when the government cuts the funding there are limited options. One of the problems is that it can take several years for a new building to go from inception to completion, by which time there may or may not be enough room in it to keep up with demand. On top of that, the schools have to contend with the ever changing state of funding. Ultimately, it means that they don't know how much they're going to need to make up for possible future deficits when funding is cut.
Also, you're comment about common sense is pretty ignorant. There isn't an inherent loss of common sense by going to college. Folks who make that assertion tend to be uneducated and looking to score a cheap shot because they don't have the education to argue properly.
The administrators are inexcusable, but the lobbyists are to be expected. I'm not sure where you live, but around here the state regularly gets sued for under funding education and the schools would be even less well funded without lobbyists.
It doesn't make it right, but when tax increases require a 2/3 vote, the voters or the legislators have to be convinced to part with their money as an investment in the future. Which is a shame because we get a lot of money from our highly educated work force here.
No, unless you're talking about the Ivy League old boys clubs, which is a completely different problem, it's not true. The main thing you pay for with an Ivy League education is connections to people that are connected, the education they provide isn't necessarily any better than high quality state schools.
The other aspect is that state schools are more prevalent out west than they are back east and there's a tendency to over value things that are respected on the East Coast regardless of what you're actually gettin.
That's not realistic. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together wastes their money on a college that isn't accredited. And with good reason. Accreditation is what establishes that the diploma is worth something. It doesn't establish that the person knows something or is knowledgeable about things, but it does establish that they were at least exposed to the education that they're claiming and that at some point they managed to pass the classes.
As for whining, it's really not whining. Around here trying to live a responsible lifestyle where in one is able to save for college, pay for medical insurance and make ones life better requires a pretty substantial amount of money. At a minimum you're talking about $20 an hour. And that's with a spartan lifestyle and no children.
The reason folks are complaining isn't because it's hard, they're complaining because incompetent jack asses such as yourself seem to think that after several decades of disassembling protections for workers and giving increasing tax breaks for corporations to out source labor that folks are going to be able to afford to compete with off shore labor.
I'm not familiar enough with PSU to have much to comment on them. But around here the state schools have been told for the last decade to behave more like a private business. The consequence has largely been for the number of spaces available for residents to decrease and an increasing number of spaces to open up for those from out of state.
Ultimately, those that aren't interested in paying taxes are fucking us all over, at some point the lack of education in the US is going to hurt us. That doesn't necessarily mean that everybody needs a degree, but it does mean that those with the interest, motivation and aptitude shouldn't have to sell themselves into a lifetime of indentured servitude to go.
That's a large part of it, another large part of it is that the folks running the schools are under a delusion that scholarships will cover the costs. Which isn't true. Most folks are saddled with large loans and those that aren't are typically progeny of rich parents.
Also, the estimates for what parents can afford to pay to cover the cost, is a large part of the problem. There's no law that requires parents to pay, and yet it gets factored into financial aid calculations. Sometimes it means that people who shouldn't be getting it do and other times it results in people that should be getting it aren't. And in cases like me, because the parents didn't feel like doing the paperwork for the FAFSA it means that they'll get nothing beyond the ones on the IRS forms.
Ultimately, even if it were true, that wouldn't be an excuse to inflate costs or be less vigilant about making students pay for things that aren't reasonably related to their education.
Not necessarily, it all depends upon the terms that they were licensed under. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some language in the license that allows VIA to revoke the license to use those patents in cases where the licensee is suing allies for allegedly infringing upon their patents.
And unlike trademarks, there is no legal requirement that I know of that a party enforces ones patent protections for them to remain available.
It would have to be 100% efficient to even attempt that. Otherwise you'd lose energy in the conversion process and as a result end up with less energy than you had, rather than more.
Because time is defined relative to the length of time that a photon takes to travel a meter. If a neutron is able to do so more quickly than a photon does under certain circumstances then one of the possibilities would be for neutrinos that travel in time. Any particle that can travel backwards in time would presumably have some effect on causality.
I'm not suggesting it's true, but unless there's something that prevents a neutrino from going backwards in time and or interacting with things in the past, then there would certainly be cause for concern about causality. As implausible as it all is.
They aren't claiming that the results are correct. They're claiming that they have yet to find the error. And the article I read made it very clear that the scientists expect there to be some type of error or effect involved that explains the result, without having to have neutrinos breaking the speed of light.
They've retested the experiment and tried various ways of finding the error and have as of now unsuccessful in finding it. So, they're kicking it to the broader community to explain. It is certainly possible that Einstein was wrong, but it's a bit of a stretch for a result like this to happen accidentally after so many tests by so many independent researchers.
It's not a free speech issue. You're still free to say what you want, it's just that people have to locate you by IP address rather than domain name. A problem which really needs to be remedied.
As for the topic, none of the ones people use in a browser are going to be safe as long as ICANN is responsible ultimately.
I've said it before, but I think that the most likely outcome if T-Mobile goes up for sale after this deal is blocked would be for somebody like Century Link to acquire it so as to not be limited to reselling somebody else's service.
Comcast is capped and when they had my business they managed to be out several hours every single afternoon. Even if they have fixed their service, they're still capped and barely any faster than DSL. On top of which, I'd be sharing bandwidth going to the ISP.
And there are those of us that would be grateful to get 25mbps, around here the ISP only offers 6mbps tops if you go with cable or 5mbps with DSL. And that's assuming that you're in a neighborhood where they care about providing a halfway decent connections, some of the neighborhoods top out at 1.5mbps.
Judging from the fact that low latency connections aren't available here, I'd have to suggest that it isn't selling. Whether or not it would is another question.
OTOH, we don't have bandwidth over 6mbps available here at all, so perhaps it's just greed and incompetence. Either way, I'd be more than happy to deal with the latency if I could get 100mbps of bandwidth.
What it means is that they were added to the constitution with that in mind. Without being in the constitution it would be less likely that patents would exist in the US.
Or are you just making a post hoc rationalization for why the original post was correct by changing the parameters and hoping that nobody notices?
It's more of a reasonable proposition than it ever has been in the past. For one thing people really like angry birds and those sorts of casual games and for another developers insist upon granting the browser more and more access to hardware.
Even though it's a mistake, it does appear to be happening, the question is really how advanced are the games going to be. I wouldn't have expected games like FreeCiv to end up in the browser.
If they can't guarantee that the genes won't spread, then they shouldn't be doing the research. End of story full stop.
It is incredibly irresponsible and arrogant of them to put the entire world at risk, because they're too cheap to do their studies under controlled and monitored conditions. If the CDC can work like that, I don't see any good reason why these researchers can't.
The argument that we don't really have a choice anymore has more to do with incompetent regulation than it does any particular reality. Corporations do it like this because it's cheaper, the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary, most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place. We wouldn't need golden rice if the farmers would be growing a traditional mix of greens along with the rice.
You mean other than the part where they undercut the local competitors price and make it significantly harder to pay workers more than minimum wage? Not to mention their union busting and efforts to roll back workers rights.
Personally, I'd rather pay welfare for the poor than welfare for the rich and corporations. But that's just me, food for the greedy, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Depends what they're planning to do. Congressional hearings are precisely the ones you want if the most likely fix involves changes to the laws. You can't really do that with the courts or regulatory agencies. And it may turn out that Google's behavior is technically legal, but nonetheless unacceptable.
Or at least you're not supposed to be able to, but SCOTUS tends to forget that it's supposed to declare things as constitutional or not, and in some cases weigh in on the interpretation of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Same reason why the older style of cutting it open with a scalpel would result in somebody being barred from being a fighter pilot. The technology they use is somewhat different, it's akin to grinding a lens down to change its shape.
The issue is that they cut a flap in the cornea to do the work, and there's a small chance that excessive g-forces could cause it to flap open.
It's not something they like doing, but when the government cuts the funding there are limited options. One of the problems is that it can take several years for a new building to go from inception to completion, by which time there may or may not be enough room in it to keep up with demand. On top of that, the schools have to contend with the ever changing state of funding. Ultimately, it means that they don't know how much they're going to need to make up for possible future deficits when funding is cut.
Also, you're comment about common sense is pretty ignorant. There isn't an inherent loss of common sense by going to college. Folks who make that assertion tend to be uneducated and looking to score a cheap shot because they don't have the education to argue properly.
The administrators are inexcusable, but the lobbyists are to be expected. I'm not sure where you live, but around here the state regularly gets sued for under funding education and the schools would be even less well funded without lobbyists.
It doesn't make it right, but when tax increases require a 2/3 vote, the voters or the legislators have to be convinced to part with their money as an investment in the future. Which is a shame because we get a lot of money from our highly educated work force here.
No, unless you're talking about the Ivy League old boys clubs, which is a completely different problem, it's not true. The main thing you pay for with an Ivy League education is connections to people that are connected, the education they provide isn't necessarily any better than high quality state schools.
The other aspect is that state schools are more prevalent out west than they are back east and there's a tendency to over value things that are respected on the East Coast regardless of what you're actually gettin.
That's not realistic. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together wastes their money on a college that isn't accredited. And with good reason. Accreditation is what establishes that the diploma is worth something. It doesn't establish that the person knows something or is knowledgeable about things, but it does establish that they were at least exposed to the education that they're claiming and that at some point they managed to pass the classes.
As for whining, it's really not whining. Around here trying to live a responsible lifestyle where in one is able to save for college, pay for medical insurance and make ones life better requires a pretty substantial amount of money. At a minimum you're talking about $20 an hour. And that's with a spartan lifestyle and no children.
The reason folks are complaining isn't because it's hard, they're complaining because incompetent jack asses such as yourself seem to think that after several decades of disassembling protections for workers and giving increasing tax breaks for corporations to out source labor that folks are going to be able to afford to compete with off shore labor.
I'm not familiar enough with PSU to have much to comment on them. But around here the state schools have been told for the last decade to behave more like a private business. The consequence has largely been for the number of spaces available for residents to decrease and an increasing number of spaces to open up for those from out of state.
Ultimately, those that aren't interested in paying taxes are fucking us all over, at some point the lack of education in the US is going to hurt us. That doesn't necessarily mean that everybody needs a degree, but it does mean that those with the interest, motivation and aptitude shouldn't have to sell themselves into a lifetime of indentured servitude to go.
That's a large part of it, another large part of it is that the folks running the schools are under a delusion that scholarships will cover the costs. Which isn't true. Most folks are saddled with large loans and those that aren't are typically progeny of rich parents.
Also, the estimates for what parents can afford to pay to cover the cost, is a large part of the problem. There's no law that requires parents to pay, and yet it gets factored into financial aid calculations. Sometimes it means that people who shouldn't be getting it do and other times it results in people that should be getting it aren't. And in cases like me, because the parents didn't feel like doing the paperwork for the FAFSA it means that they'll get nothing beyond the ones on the IRS forms.
Ultimately, even if it were true, that wouldn't be an excuse to inflate costs or be less vigilant about making students pay for things that aren't reasonably related to their education.
Not necessarily, it all depends upon the terms that they were licensed under. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some language in the license that allows VIA to revoke the license to use those patents in cases where the licensee is suing allies for allegedly infringing upon their patents.
And unlike trademarks, there is no legal requirement that I know of that a party enforces ones patent protections for them to remain available.
It would have to be 100% efficient to even attempt that. Otherwise you'd lose energy in the conversion process and as a result end up with less energy than you had, rather than more.
It's a lot more plausible than your suggestion that Sprint is trying to block the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for any reason other than self preservation.
Call me paranoid, but I have this sneaking suspicion that this might have something to do with AT&T trying to buy T-Mobile.
Because time is defined relative to the length of time that a photon takes to travel a meter. If a neutron is able to do so more quickly than a photon does under certain circumstances then one of the possibilities would be for neutrinos that travel in time. Any particle that can travel backwards in time would presumably have some effect on causality.
I'm not suggesting it's true, but unless there's something that prevents a neutrino from going backwards in time and or interacting with things in the past, then there would certainly be cause for concern about causality. As implausible as it all is.
They aren't claiming that the results are correct. They're claiming that they have yet to find the error. And the article I read made it very clear that the scientists expect there to be some type of error or effect involved that explains the result, without having to have neutrinos breaking the speed of light.
They've retested the experiment and tried various ways of finding the error and have as of now unsuccessful in finding it. So, they're kicking it to the broader community to explain. It is certainly possible that Einstein was wrong, but it's a bit of a stretch for a result like this to happen accidentally after so many tests by so many independent researchers.
It's not a free speech issue. You're still free to say what you want, it's just that people have to locate you by IP address rather than domain name. A problem which really needs to be remedied.
As for the topic, none of the ones people use in a browser are going to be safe as long as ICANN is responsible ultimately.
Easy, with the increased costs and decreased customer service, they'll probably have fewer users competing for scarce bandwidth.
I've said it before, but I think that the most likely outcome if T-Mobile goes up for sale after this deal is blocked would be for somebody like Century Link to acquire it so as to not be limited to reselling somebody else's service.
Comcast is capped and when they had my business they managed to be out several hours every single afternoon. Even if they have fixed their service, they're still capped and barely any faster than DSL. On top of which, I'd be sharing bandwidth going to the ISP.
And there are those of us that would be grateful to get 25mbps, around here the ISP only offers 6mbps tops if you go with cable or 5mbps with DSL. And that's assuming that you're in a neighborhood where they care about providing a halfway decent connections, some of the neighborhoods top out at 1.5mbps.
Judging from the fact that low latency connections aren't available here, I'd have to suggest that it isn't selling. Whether or not it would is another question.
OTOH, we don't have bandwidth over 6mbps available here at all, so perhaps it's just greed and incompetence. Either way, I'd be more than happy to deal with the latency if I could get 100mbps of bandwidth.
People were filing the patents, but when was the last time anybody successfully used the patents in court?
What it means is that they were added to the constitution with that in mind. Without being in the constitution it would be less likely that patents would exist in the US.
Or are you just making a post hoc rationalization for why the original post was correct by changing the parameters and hoping that nobody notices?
It's more of a reasonable proposition than it ever has been in the past. For one thing people really like angry birds and those sorts of casual games and for another developers insist upon granting the browser more and more access to hardware.
Even though it's a mistake, it does appear to be happening, the question is really how advanced are the games going to be. I wouldn't have expected games like FreeCiv to end up in the browser.
If they can't guarantee that the genes won't spread, then they shouldn't be doing the research. End of story full stop.
It is incredibly irresponsible and arrogant of them to put the entire world at risk, because they're too cheap to do their studies under controlled and monitored conditions. If the CDC can work like that, I don't see any good reason why these researchers can't.
The argument that we don't really have a choice anymore has more to do with incompetent regulation than it does any particular reality. Corporations do it like this because it's cheaper, the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary, most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place. We wouldn't need golden rice if the farmers would be growing a traditional mix of greens along with the rice.
You mean other than the part where they undercut the local competitors price and make it significantly harder to pay workers more than minimum wage? Not to mention their union busting and efforts to roll back workers rights.
Personally, I'd rather pay welfare for the poor than welfare for the rich and corporations. But that's just me, food for the greedy, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Depends what they're planning to do. Congressional hearings are precisely the ones you want if the most likely fix involves changes to the laws. You can't really do that with the courts or regulatory agencies. And it may turn out that Google's behavior is technically legal, but nonetheless unacceptable.
Or at least you're not supposed to be able to, but SCOTUS tends to forget that it's supposed to declare things as constitutional or not, and in some cases weigh in on the interpretation of the law.