Oh, I'm familiar with that - I was limiting my imagination to just a lock. There's a bunch of fun ways to get a door open, very few of which involve finesse. I do not believe we had, at least I don't recall seeing any, those while I was active duty. I have seen them in film footage and read about them. I'd be lying if I said I did not want to play with one.
I'd babble about how the "highest" order of mathematics would be the Philosopher of Mathematics but I suspect you know that and it would be immaterial.;-) Anyhow, yes, very much is it unpredictable and it's certainly adequate (probably exceeding needs) for the time being. It's just not true random - I'm pretty sure. It's one of those subjects that I find fascinating and have spent a bit of time on. I do know a little about quantum physics, not a great deal, but my understanding is that it is still quantum states may be true random, in as much as we can tell, but we're not quite sure how to go about proving this. Again, I've a very limited understanding of such.
Yeah, I'd also think it would have research value like, "most common issues found in x scenario." It'd give the private sector something to look for as well as provide just general research data that might be of value to someone. Definitely redacted. I mean, yeah - I paid for it, can't I see the results and use those results? Well, not me personally but me the citizen. I'm retired and happy for it.
If I had to wager, given what we currently know, I'd submit that it is probably a bit more pre-programmed (or influenced by chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen) that you seem to think and less predictive than others are inclined to think. I strongly suspect that there's straight up differences in trait strengths and weaknesses. To use your example of black people, they are - indeed, physically different as a general rule. This doesn't make them less than or better than however, it does mean they have dominant traits more frequently than others.
Denying this does nothing to further humanity. Using it as an excuse to limit, prejudge, or separate does hinder our further humanity. It's not too painful to admit that we're different. It's okay. In fact, it's a wonderful thing to accept and be aware of diversity and to break those boundaries is a great thing. Not each and every person is going to be the same and some may well be exceptional. That doesn't mean that we're not different as a general rule. It's quite likely that one gender will be more adept at various things (see spacial awareness with me) than another. To think otherwise isn't very smart.
Equal opportunity is an important thing to have but that doesn't necessarily result in equal outcomes. To be more specific, this doesn't mean that women can't do tech. To assume that it means that is just silly. It might mean that men are predisposed to it on a more frequent basis than women are. That's okay. Let people reach for the clouds but make sure they know that the higher they reach the harder the fall. Accept that failures happen and that we're not all the same. Expecting equal outcome is absolutely silly - to the point where it's irrational. What matters is that we've equal opportunity.
The headline is misleading. "It's not really that different" translates to "it's different." It doesn't mean one is better than the other. It just means they're different. There's no reason to read more into it than that. Some are just going to have traits at a greater frequency than others, they're pre-programmed to excel in certain areas. This doesn't prohibit them from working to excel in other areas, it just means that they must work to do so.
If Jesus were alive today, we'd probably all be Christians or, at least, believers. The dude would be over 2000 years old by now! I'd think that's plenty of proof of divinity and I'd certainly be a believer at that point.
Hmm... I think the A320 is a bit more advanced than that and Google indicates it is. It can do stuff like autoland and the likes. It's not just the basic autopilot of yore? You can find the training manual via Google. The search result was the first one on my quick search.
You made me think... I can't think of any major airlines that have had that happen to them in a long time. I can't even think of any smaller ones with just one exception and that was the Concorde and that wasn't *entirely* to do with the crash. There might be some puddle-jumper companies that have just two planes and one crash results in their going out of business but I can't think of any and Google's not being very helpful. Am I missing something? You said "often" and "single incident" and I really can't think of any. I can't even think of any minor ones where that is the result for any definition of "often.":/
I am not a licensed pilot but I've flown a plane on numerous occasions, nothing big like this. Isn't up the exact opposite of the direction you want to go if the plane reaches stall speed? I'm not positive, specifically with jets and their intake, but it seems to me that up would be the wrong direction pretty much always. Pointing the nose down to take advantage of the speed and get the lift needed to recover seems to be a more likely solution but, again, I'm not a pilot even though I know a few and have had the chance to pilot a number of planes.
(You don't need to be a licensed pilot to pilot planes. You can't land or take off but you can meander about in the air. I usually fly over my property once every couple of years and do a lot of the piloting for that and I've done so with a few other aircraft in other areas. I'm assuming that the actual licensed pilots are not lying when they have let me do so and told me that it was okay. I do understand the basics and have a general idea of the mechanics involved.)
Hmm... But, on the other hand, you might get an elephant. Elephants seem to like peanuts. I know 'cause I've fed peanuts to elephants. I did try to feed a pumpkin to an alligator but it didn't appear interested in the pumpkin.
I'm going to read your post a bit more thoroughly in a few minutes (I'm exhausted - mentally and physically) but I am missing something. With "544,0 sec," is that not seconds? Erf... I'm going to reread all of it.;-) I was under the impression that it was seconds and thus burn time.:/ Thanks for being patient.
The B in "breaking" has nothing to do with "breaking" anything except the plane. Well, pretty much. That's the simplest way to think of it. If you push a door open (even if it was ajar) then you're still breaking and entering. If you pushed open a gate, you're still breaking and entering. Think of it more like breaking the plane than breaking an object. Even deception is considered breaking and entering. Lemme find you a link...
This includes one definition that is the older form (we're talking archaic almost - these laws and interpretations have changed since before I was a kid and I'm nearing 60): http://www.yourdictionary.com/...
Some areas will vary, of course. So, if you're going to go engage in criminal acts you should contact a lawyer to ensure you're breaking the minimal number of laws. I guess, don't go breaking the law. Anyhow, I'd have figured people knew this by now but you're the second person that I noticed who remarked on this. You're still breaking and entering - just by opening the door. To do so means your hand will have likely passed the threshold/plane. So, not even entering the building might net you a breaking and entering charge. (It's usually a misdemeanor. The burglary, after that, is what's usually a felony.)
*chuckles* Have you met any Marines? I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics and served in the Marines. (GI Bill. Yay!)
Now, to be honest, I'd shoot a lock but probably not with a shotgun. Even a slug may not do the job and it is not accurate enough to do at a safe distance. I'd use a rifle, I'd probably dig an AR out for it just for fun.
I had a friend whose father owned a locksmithing company, this was back in the 1970s. I don't think it was one that you could pick up at a hardware store so much as one would have to order it from a catalog (something we did back then) but I seem to recall there was a Masterlock series in particular that he absolutely hated having to remove if they had lost their keys. They were neigh on impossible to remove without doing damage and not pick-proof (I kind of doubt any tumbler locks were pick proof back then) entirely but damned difficult to get open because of the depth of the tumblers and force required, or so I understood it. He's long since passed away and gone to where locksmiths go when they die (presumably the ground). We used to visit and practice picking locks back in the day. I was never really that good at it but I could get a few open including handcuffs of two different varieties.
*chuckles* I was mostly enjoying the use of the word random in the post(s) you'd made. I personally know a couple of good physicists who are good at mathematics! I did enjoy your posts, to be clear, they were fun to read. The thread's full of people who are who are mentioning "true-random." Also, I'm not *sure* that it is a null-hypothesis. I think it's more a matter of how the question is asked than anything. Though, when I give it more thought, it makes my brain hurt and I only got an hour or two of sleep.
That's a silly assumption to make. Why assume that it's not pre-programmed to some extent? Alas, they're probably not going to let us run experiments on a few hundred children to get meaningful data. Either way, that's a silly assumption to make an even sillier would be to use it as an argument. Are you drinking tonight? The word programmed doesn't mean user-controlled, nor does it mean (to butcher the analogy even further) that the source is open to modification.
There's intrinsic differences which this study actually finds. This doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Just that we've probably inherent traits that make us more likely to be better suited for different tasks. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. The study confirms that there are differences. It doesn't conclude that they're the same and that you'll get equal outcomes.
Also, encryption is not only possible but remarkably simple. I don't have it enabled as the default - it is just a single button press away. I also suspect that I've a fair number of emails, some sizable, that Thunderbird deals with quite nicely. I am not sure why one would have issues with it nor would I know how to go about repairing those issues because, simply, I've not had a problem with it - ever. I mean, literally, never have I had a problem with Thunderbird itself. I do have issues with the calendar plug-in (the name escapes me at the moment) and that causes issues but I don't use the functionality and wasn't actually sure why I installed it in the first place except it looked amusing at the time.
I don't know the rest of the story but Firefox is installed, by default, with Ubuntu and uses the logo and name. It's on Lubuntu as well and I'm pretty sure it's in Edubuntu and Xubuntu but I usually only use those off a live USB and use the default browser to install Opera and I've not done so in a while so I'll make no claims in those regards.
Opera Mail? Don't. Seriously, don't. I'm a huge fan of Opera and have been using Opera since it was a paid version and a lot of years ago. The email client is just not even good. It's not bad but it's just not good. It lacks features. It's not even bad enough to be bad. It's just not good. Give it a shot if you don't believe me but you have been warned. Then again, I've not used it in a while (I am not even sure if there's a Linux client any more) so you may find it suits you needs.
Don't get me wrong. It works. I might even say it works well. It's like plain pasta as an email client. It just isn't good. I wish I had a better way to describe it but, really...
I think that pretty much all of them can. Hotmail's been able to do so since forever ago, for example. Err... Unless they removed that functionality but I doubt it. Hell, I use Outlook.com as my Slashdot email (and for a few other things) and used to have it setup so that I'd pull in email from another account with my older email address.
However, I don't generally use webmail - I much prefer a client. Do one thing and do it well. For that, I like Thunderbird. I do have it themed and I do have PGP enabled so that things are either signed or encrypted.
Excellent, I'll take a look there in the morning. I'd also like to point out that the models are used to make predictions and thus must, by their nature, have data from the past in order to make predictions. Unless I am missing something. I'm both mentally and physically exhausted so I've simply bookmarked the page for now. I'm in that "function on autopilot" stage where I'm mostly passively consuming Slashdot comments with a documentary playing in another tab.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm familiar with that - I was limiting my imagination to just a lock. There's a bunch of fun ways to get a door open, very few of which involve finesse. I do not believe we had, at least I don't recall seeing any, those while I was active duty. I have seen them in film footage and read about them. I'd be lying if I said I did not want to play with one.
I'd babble about how the "highest" order of mathematics would be the Philosopher of Mathematics but I suspect you know that and it would be immaterial. ;-) Anyhow, yes, very much is it unpredictable and it's certainly adequate (probably exceeding needs) for the time being. It's just not true random - I'm pretty sure. It's one of those subjects that I find fascinating and have spent a bit of time on. I do know a little about quantum physics, not a great deal, but my understanding is that it is still quantum states may be true random, in as much as we can tell, but we're not quite sure how to go about proving this. Again, I've a very limited understanding of such.
Yeah, I'd also think it would have research value like, "most common issues found in x scenario." It'd give the private sector something to look for as well as provide just general research data that might be of value to someone. Definitely redacted. I mean, yeah - I paid for it, can't I see the results and use those results? Well, not me personally but me the citizen. I'm retired and happy for it.
If I had to wager, given what we currently know, I'd submit that it is probably a bit more pre-programmed (or influenced by chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen) that you seem to think and less predictive than others are inclined to think. I strongly suspect that there's straight up differences in trait strengths and weaknesses. To use your example of black people, they are - indeed, physically different as a general rule. This doesn't make them less than or better than however, it does mean they have dominant traits more frequently than others.
Denying this does nothing to further humanity. Using it as an excuse to limit, prejudge, or separate does hinder our further humanity. It's not too painful to admit that we're different. It's okay. In fact, it's a wonderful thing to accept and be aware of diversity and to break those boundaries is a great thing. Not each and every person is going to be the same and some may well be exceptional. That doesn't mean that we're not different as a general rule. It's quite likely that one gender will be more adept at various things (see spacial awareness with me) than another. To think otherwise isn't very smart.
Equal opportunity is an important thing to have but that doesn't necessarily result in equal outcomes. To be more specific, this doesn't mean that women can't do tech. To assume that it means that is just silly. It might mean that men are predisposed to it on a more frequent basis than women are. That's okay. Let people reach for the clouds but make sure they know that the higher they reach the harder the fall. Accept that failures happen and that we're not all the same. Expecting equal outcome is absolutely silly - to the point where it's irrational. What matters is that we've equal opportunity.
The headline is misleading. "It's not really that different" translates to "it's different." It doesn't mean one is better than the other. It just means they're different. There's no reason to read more into it than that. Some are just going to have traits at a greater frequency than others, they're pre-programmed to excel in certain areas. This doesn't prohibit them from working to excel in other areas, it just means that they must work to do so.
If Jesus were alive today, we'd probably all be Christians or, at least, believers. The dude would be over 2000 years old by now! I'd think that's plenty of proof of divinity and I'd certainly be a believer at that point.
Hmm... I think the A320 is a bit more advanced than that and Google indicates it is. It can do stuff like autoland and the likes. It's not just the basic autopilot of yore? You can find the training manual via Google. The search result was the first one on my quick search.
You made me think... I can't think of any major airlines that have had that happen to them in a long time. I can't even think of any smaller ones with just one exception and that was the Concorde and that wasn't *entirely* to do with the crash. There might be some puddle-jumper companies that have just two planes and one crash results in their going out of business but I can't think of any and Google's not being very helpful. Am I missing something? You said "often" and "single incident" and I really can't think of any. I can't even think of any minor ones where that is the result for any definition of "often." :/
I am not a licensed pilot but I've flown a plane on numerous occasions, nothing big like this. Isn't up the exact opposite of the direction you want to go if the plane reaches stall speed? I'm not positive, specifically with jets and their intake, but it seems to me that up would be the wrong direction pretty much always. Pointing the nose down to take advantage of the speed and get the lift needed to recover seems to be a more likely solution but, again, I'm not a pilot even though I know a few and have had the chance to pilot a number of planes.
(You don't need to be a licensed pilot to pilot planes. You can't land or take off but you can meander about in the air. I usually fly over my property once every couple of years and do a lot of the piloting for that and I've done so with a few other aircraft in other areas. I'm assuming that the actual licensed pilots are not lying when they have let me do so and told me that it was okay. I do understand the basics and have a general idea of the mechanics involved.)
Hmm... But, on the other hand, you might get an elephant. Elephants seem to like peanuts. I know 'cause I've fed peanuts to elephants. I did try to feed a pumpkin to an alligator but it didn't appear interested in the pumpkin.
Wait... What was the subject again?
I'm going to read your post a bit more thoroughly in a few minutes (I'm exhausted - mentally and physically) but I am missing something. With "544,0 sec," is that not seconds? Erf... I'm going to reread all of it. ;-) I was under the impression that it was seconds and thus burn time. :/ Thanks for being patient.
Don't pick on him. He's not mentally competent. He's straight up delusional but he does make a good puppet.
The B in "breaking" has nothing to do with "breaking" anything except the plane. Well, pretty much. That's the simplest way to think of it. If you push a door open (even if it was ajar) then you're still breaking and entering. If you pushed open a gate, you're still breaking and entering. Think of it more like breaking the plane than breaking an object. Even deception is considered breaking and entering. Lemme find you a link...
Here:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...
This includes one definition that is the older form (we're talking archaic almost - these laws and interpretations have changed since before I was a kid and I'm nearing 60):
http://www.yourdictionary.com/...
Some areas will vary, of course. So, if you're going to go engage in criminal acts you should contact a lawyer to ensure you're breaking the minimal number of laws. I guess, don't go breaking the law. Anyhow, I'd have figured people knew this by now but you're the second person that I noticed who remarked on this. You're still breaking and entering - just by opening the door. To do so means your hand will have likely passed the threshold/plane. So, not even entering the building might net you a breaking and entering charge. (It's usually a misdemeanor. The burglary, after that, is what's usually a felony.)
*chuckles* Have you met any Marines? I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics and served in the Marines. (GI Bill. Yay!)
Now, to be honest, I'd shoot a lock but probably not with a shotgun. Even a slug may not do the job and it is not accurate enough to do at a safe distance. I'd use a rifle, I'd probably dig an AR out for it just for fun.
I had a friend whose father owned a locksmithing company, this was back in the 1970s. I don't think it was one that you could pick up at a hardware store so much as one would have to order it from a catalog (something we did back then) but I seem to recall there was a Masterlock series in particular that he absolutely hated having to remove if they had lost their keys. They were neigh on impossible to remove without doing damage and not pick-proof (I kind of doubt any tumbler locks were pick proof back then) entirely but damned difficult to get open because of the depth of the tumblers and force required, or so I understood it. He's long since passed away and gone to where locksmiths go when they die (presumably the ground). We used to visit and practice picking locks back in the day. I was never really that good at it but I could get a few open including handcuffs of two different varieties.
Don't quote me on this but I think the tumblers, in good locks, are made of brass? If so, I don't know how much good a magnet is going to be.
*chuckles* I was mostly enjoying the use of the word random in the post(s) you'd made. I personally know a couple of good physicists who are good at mathematics! I did enjoy your posts, to be clear, they were fun to read. The thread's full of people who are who are mentioning "true-random." Also, I'm not *sure* that it is a null-hypothesis. I think it's more a matter of how the question is asked than anything. Though, when I give it more thought, it makes my brain hurt and I only got an hour or two of sleep.
That's a silly assumption to make. Why assume that it's not pre-programmed to some extent? Alas, they're probably not going to let us run experiments on a few hundred children to get meaningful data. Either way, that's a silly assumption to make an even sillier would be to use it as an argument. Are you drinking tonight? The word programmed doesn't mean user-controlled, nor does it mean (to butcher the analogy even further) that the source is open to modification.
There's intrinsic differences which this study actually finds. This doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Just that we've probably inherent traits that make us more likely to be better suited for different tasks. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. The study confirms that there are differences. It doesn't conclude that they're the same and that you'll get equal outcomes.
Hmm... I'm using NOAA's terminology:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
Projections works. I'll keep the nominal difference in mind.
Also, encryption is not only possible but remarkably simple. I don't have it enabled as the default - it is just a single button press away. I also suspect that I've a fair number of emails, some sizable, that Thunderbird deals with quite nicely. I am not sure why one would have issues with it nor would I know how to go about repairing those issues because, simply, I've not had a problem with it - ever. I mean, literally, never have I had a problem with Thunderbird itself. I do have issues with the calendar plug-in (the name escapes me at the moment) and that causes issues but I don't use the functionality and wasn't actually sure why I installed it in the first place except it looked amusing at the time.
I don't know the rest of the story but Firefox is installed, by default, with Ubuntu and uses the logo and name. It's on Lubuntu as well and I'm pretty sure it's in Edubuntu and Xubuntu but I usually only use those off a live USB and use the default browser to install Opera and I've not done so in a while so I'll make no claims in those regards.
Opera Mail? Don't. Seriously, don't. I'm a huge fan of Opera and have been using Opera since it was a paid version and a lot of years ago. The email client is just not even good. It's not bad but it's just not good. It lacks features. It's not even bad enough to be bad. It's just not good. Give it a shot if you don't believe me but you have been warned. Then again, I've not used it in a while (I am not even sure if there's a Linux client any more) so you may find it suits you needs.
Don't get me wrong. It works. I might even say it works well. It's like plain pasta as an email client. It just isn't good. I wish I had a better way to describe it but, really...
I think that pretty much all of them can. Hotmail's been able to do so since forever ago, for example. Err... Unless they removed that functionality but I doubt it. Hell, I use Outlook.com as my Slashdot email (and for a few other things) and used to have it setup so that I'd pull in email from another account with my older email address.
However, I don't generally use webmail - I much prefer a client. Do one thing and do it well. For that, I like Thunderbird. I do have it themed and I do have PGP enabled so that things are either signed or encrypted.
Personally? I'm *very* fond of Thunderbird.
Excellent, I'll take a look there in the morning. I'd also like to point out that the models are used to make predictions and thus must, by their nature, have data from the past in order to make predictions. Unless I am missing something. I'm both mentally and physically exhausted so I've simply bookmarked the page for now. I'm in that "function on autopilot" stage where I'm mostly passively consuming Slashdot comments with a documentary playing in another tab.
As this is done with our tax dollars, do we get the results? How about via the FOIA?