Of course, you have the problem that when you go to play back the record
When you play back the battle you don't need the sound anymore. You survived. So it is not important anymore. But really I don't think the idea with artificial explosion sounds is that bad. I once saw a documentation about cockpits in large planes and experiments with different sounds additional to the normal optical instruments and how this improved the reaction time of the pilots. This is not that far away from spicing up otherwise totally inaudible fight situations. Suppose another space ship shoots at you. You hear nothing and have to read your instruments, how close they were, from which side they came. This would be quite slow. Now let a computer generate a certain noise e.g. like a star trek phaser, which roughly tells you how close it was and from where the shot came. Not too far fetched that this could help you to react faster. Actually this idea might even work in reality.
Why do economic principles apply to the "under supply" problem with math and science teachers but not to the "over supply" of other types of teachers?
You hired a PE teacher when you needed one, want to fire him when he isn't needed anymore? Maybe this can be done, but do you really think you'd get quality teachers this way?
I think the NEA is a major problem with our education system.
Yours, not mine. But the problem is international.;-)
Just because I don't agree with your logic doesn't mean my attitude is "destructive". I also never said "don't" once in my post. You seem to have inferred that somehow.
Here I have to apologize never checked your nick. So I missed the change walterbyrd -> dwormdahl. *blush*
I have no problem with that but you must then be able to apply the same principles to the other side of the coin otherwise it doesn't work.
You have to try to hire the right amount of the right type of teachers. If you don't need PE teachers anymore, just stop hiring them. But you cannot simply fire the one you have or lower their wages. Teachers are no day laborers.
Honest question. Why is it wrong to pay a math teacher teaching AP Calculus more money than a PE teacher teaching badminton if they both have the same years of experience and years of education?
Don't ask me. I would have no problem with this.
I would not want 'day-laborer teachers', but individually negotiated contracts of labor would be fine with me.
I doubt it. Gasoline needs a certain ratio of air to be able to explode. And this is only found in an almost empty tank. Though this might have been the problem. They probably had their tanks almost empty when they crashed their cars.
he combination of weightlessness and being in a vacuum means that the engines do not need to be continuously firing to maintain momentum in any particular direction
One of the liberties Hollywood takes with physics that amuses me is how lasers and other energy weapons tend not to propagate at c
This is easy to explain. These are not lasers. These are 'packages' of super ionized gas in a magnetic holding matrix. So actually it is magnetically accelerated matter, which usually does not propagate at c. The really funny thing is that the trajectory of those shots never is influenced by high electromagnetic fields. But I think this negligence can be excused.;-)
What gets crazy is when Star Wars apologists posit that the reason you hear explosions from other ships is that the ship's computers detect the explosion and play a soundtrack for you...
Actually I like this explanation. Could be easily backed up by some pseudo-psychological mumbo-jumbo that it keeps the crew alert and results in better battle performance.
I honestly don't know. Perhaps they don't have the proper qualification? It is math and science teachers, which are sought.
There are some people who have to fight for years to get a teaching job.
You say there is no shortage, the article says there is. I cannot verify myself what is true. But if there is a shortage of a certain type of teachers, giving a financial incentive to chose this job does not sound wrong for me.
Absolutely. But this was not the question. I just wondered whether there are some more or less mathematically backed up speculations floating around _why_ it is they way it is. I don't expect much substantial, but there are even speculations what was before the big bang, or what caused it. So why not speculating _why_ nothing can be faster than c?
Speed of Light is just the another barrier to be broken.
Yes and no. As far as I understand it, experts try think of ways to exceed the speed of light. The problem is that regardless how you do it, if you do it, it would allow to violate causality. If it was only the infinite mass increase and the infinite energy, which seems to be necessary to accelerate to c, there might be some loophole to be found. But going faster than light seems automatically allow time travel with all its problems. So I'd say there is at least a very strong evidence that ftl is impossible.
...absolute speed limit?
Ok, I really don't expect an answer to that question. I just wonder, whether there is a theory, which deals with this question directly or indirectly. I don't care how goofy the theory is. With all the strange theories, be it string theory, be it M-theory be it whatever, is there one theory, which does not take the 'you cannot exceed the speed of light' as axiom, but tries to explain it? Somehow it is easier for me to accept the laws of thermodynamics, than this somewhat arbitrary speed limit.
If there's a supply problem with math and science teachers then economics would say pay more and the supply should increase over time.
Yes
What about the over supply then of some types of teachers (i.e. PE teachers)? Do we get to apply the same logic to that field and pay them less?
No, teachers are no milk bottles, which can be bought, sold, disposed.
No, because the NEA (teachers union) won't let us.
And this is a good thing.
The NEA essentially says that a teacher is a teacher is a teacher... no matter if one is an AP Physics teacher and the other teaches general PE.
Apparently this is wrong. The article does not say that there is a lack of English or arts teachers, but physics and math teachers. If you want more math teachers, give incentives that more people chose this job.
You see, this is my main problem with your attitude, it is destructive. You only say "don't do this, don't do that". I did not read a single line from you how you would solve the problem.
1) Teaching is not a big money profession. Never was, probably never will be. If somebody wants big money, do something else. Teaching should almost be a calling. Why do people go into teaching, then bitch about their wages? What did they expect?
Nice attitude. There are enough science and math teachers? If so, there would not be a problem. But apparently there are not. What is your solution? Do nothing? Not enough people got 'the call'? Too bad, nothing we can do about, so let's just wait for better times? Enlistment? Everyone who can add 1 + 1 can be drafted to teach science and math?
I don't know, but if there really is a lack of a certain sort of teachers, your 'substantial perks' does not really seem to be so compelling. And if you like it or not, but the usual way to get people to do what you want it to pay them.
They are absolutely right. Configurability is bad. No one needs it. It is confusing, wastes resources. Tomorrow I will give to GNOME people my configuration so that they can make it the one and only GNOME default. If I cannot configure stuff, no problem. It has just to be done the way I like and want it.
Open source software is just as morally neutral as proprietary software.
Yes and no. From the point of a mere user it is not neutral, but beneficial. If you get open source software, which fits your needs, you get the best software the developer was able to code. With proprietary software you might get intentionally crippled software for what reason ever. Be it the company wants to cash in for extra features, be it the company wants you to lock into their product, be it they want to shorten the life cycle to force you to buy the next version. This might be legally 100% ok, viewed from a distance even morally ok, but if I personally need a certain piece of software I don't view it from a distance. I am directly affected by the type of license.
Of course I now could make many words, like above. About how it is the choice of the software developer to chose a license form. About companies, which have to make money etc. That operational decisions within the bounds of laws are never evil, even if they are unfavourable for customers.
All true, but if i want to give a short résumé of all this from my point as user, it still boils down to:
Open source: Good
Proprietary code: Evil
Or if you leave your phone in the office and don't want people using it to make calls when you're out.
People like that deserve whatever is done with their phone. Preferably long and very expensive phone calls. Constantly ringing cell phones are always an annoyance, but leaving it lying around in an office without being able to take calls as fast as possible, so that colleagues are bothered by the ringing, should be considered harassment at work.
Hey, maybe they could actually deliver on WinFS this time. Ya think?
Nope, they cannot do that. First there has to be a working example either from apple or the open source community. Else they don't know how to invent it.
Why do you think these are successful free software projects? Many users?
No, I define it as "not complete garbage, and has a big enough user base that I won't be completely on my own if I use it."
How is it useful to define success in that way?
It isn't, but you did not define 'success' either. You just listed a few large projects, but no explanation why do you call them 'successful'.
The grandparent was talking about looking at Sourceforge to avoid sifting through a bunch of hobby projects that aren't going anywhere.
Really? Actually the grandparent did not say much. He provided a link to the iweek article and asked for winners and losers among the SourceForge projects. I just think these attributes are not applicable for SouceForge projects. At least not with a proper definition what a winner and a loser is.
With your first post you seemed implicitly to say it is size. At least you only chose some of the largest projects.
OOSS applications are not always more secure than closed source programs. I think a lot of this depends on the type of application as well as the popularity of the application
I am not 100% sure, whether I agree or disagree here. Of course, if you mean code quality, you are
right. Open source is not better just because it is open. All kind of people can write open source,
so there exists every possible skill level. Open source has no advantage here.
But, and I think this is important, even if there are no 1000 eyes, which look at the code as often
claimed. And even if there are not 1000 hands, which meticulously remove every bug they find, open source nevertheless has a very important security advantage: It is open.
Every open source programmer knows of the possibility that someone might go through his code, Therefore I really doubt that many of them dare to hide evil stuff like backdoors of phone home routines in their code.
Open source might not protect much from bad code, but it surely does a good job to protect users from evil intent.
So it seems, I tend more to 'OS is more secure'.:-)
Why do you think these are successful free software projects? Many users? This is wrong thinking.
For example, in your list is Linux and BSD. Both might have millions of users. But both are operating systems so they are (within limits, no fight here) interchangeable. Therefore each Linux user is a loss for BSD and vice versa. You could say, that if one of them really were successful, the other would not exist anymore.
In relation to that, isn't a program with a small user base, let's say 50 users, much more successful, when it can claim 100% of its possible user base?
Could it be that you are a troll? A sensible person certainly would not believe everything a company says. However, when someone tells me that company X forbids Y, which might be totally within their rights to do so, but an official speaker of company X tells different, that X has no intention to forbid Y, whom should I believe? Companies might lie, even bad lies, but in this case it would be ridiculous.
I am a bit ambivalent here. On the one hand I'd like to agree. On the other hand you should be aware that something like that always can happen. Most people would try to get further information if they suspect strongly enough that there is danger involved. But 'underestimate' just means that they did not expect real danger. Do you really check for everything you do whether it might me dangerous?
Example: You know that some people are allergic to nuts. When you invite friends, do you always ask them for allergies before you give them something to eat? Check the food of possibly harmful contents? If not, are you not negligent?
Don't know why this is modded 'Funny'. Well, intelligence is no requisite for getting mod points.
Nevertheless, it is not that harsh as it sounds. If I am seeking for my real name in the net, I get several hits, which are not me. So that his name might come up in a search for 'sex offender' is not a problem. At least by far not that much of a problem he had, should he be officially registered as sex offender in Satan's own country.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you propose? Space operas would be seriously limited if have no faster than light travel or have to heed relativistic effects.
Jurassic Park?
I doubt it. Gasoline needs a certain ratio of air to be able to explode. And this is only found in an almost empty tank. Though this might have been the problem. They probably had their tanks almost empty when they crashed their cars.
Absolutely. But this was not the question. I just wondered whether there are some more or less mathematically backed up speculations floating around _why_ it is they way it is. I don't expect much substantial, but there are even speculations what was before the big bang, or what caused it. So why not speculating _why_ nothing can be faster than c?
...absolute speed limit? Ok, I really don't expect an answer to that question. I just wonder, whether there is a theory, which deals with this question directly or indirectly. I don't care how goofy the theory is. With all the strange theories, be it string theory, be it M-theory be it whatever, is there one theory, which does not take the 'you cannot exceed the speed of light' as axiom, but tries to explain it? Somehow it is easier for me to accept the laws of thermodynamics, than this somewhat arbitrary speed limit.
I don't know, but if there really is a lack of a certain sort of teachers, your 'substantial perks' does not really seem to be so compelling. And if you like it or not, but the usual way to get people to do what you want it to pay them.
Says who? Can you elaborate? Maybe there are arguments for this point of view, but just throwing in such a statements is nothing more than trolling.
They are absolutely right. Configurability is bad. No one needs it. It is confusing, wastes resources. Tomorrow I will give to GNOME people my configuration so that they can make it the one and only GNOME default. If I cannot configure stuff, no problem. It has just to be done the way I like and want it.
Of course I now could make many words, like above. About how it is the choice of the software developer to chose a license form. About companies, which have to make money etc. That operational decisions within the bounds of laws are never evil, even if they are unfavourable for customers.
All true, but if i want to give a short résumé of all this from my point as user, it still boils down to:
Open source: Good
Proprietary code: Evil
With your first post you seemed implicitly to say it is size. At least you only chose some of the largest projects.
But, and I think this is important, even if there are no 1000 eyes, which look at the code as often claimed. And even if there are not 1000 hands, which meticulously remove every bug they find, open source nevertheless has a very important security advantage: It is open.
Every open source programmer knows of the possibility that someone might go through his code, Therefore I really doubt that many of them dare to hide evil stuff like backdoors of phone home routines in their code.
Open source might not protect much from bad code, but it surely does a good job to protect users from evil intent.
So it seems, I tend more to 'OS is more secure'.
Why do you think these are successful free software projects? Many users? This is wrong thinking. For example, in your list is Linux and BSD. Both might have millions of users. But both are operating systems so they are (within limits, no fight here) interchangeable. Therefore each Linux user is a loss for BSD and vice versa. You could say, that if one of them really were successful, the other would not exist anymore. In relation to that, isn't a program with a small user base, let's say 50 users, much more successful, when it can claim 100% of its possible user base?
Could it be that you are a troll? A sensible person certainly would not believe everything a company says. However, when someone tells me that company X forbids Y, which might be totally within their rights to do so, but an official speaker of company X tells different, that X has no intention to forbid Y, whom should I believe? Companies might lie, even bad lies, but in this case it would be ridiculous.
I am a bit ambivalent here. On the one hand I'd like to agree. On the other hand you should be aware that something like that always can happen. Most people would try to get further information if they suspect strongly enough that there is danger involved. But 'underestimate' just means that they did not expect real danger. Do you really check for everything you do whether it might me dangerous?
Example: You know that some people are allergic to nuts. When you invite friends, do you always ask them for allergies before you give them something to eat? Check the food of possibly harmful contents? If not, are you not negligent?
Don't know why this is modded 'Funny'. Well, intelligence is no requisite for getting mod points.
Nevertheless, it is not that harsh as it sounds. If I am seeking for my real name in the net, I get several hits, which are not me. So that his name might come up in a search for 'sex offender' is not a problem. At least by far not that much of a problem he had, should he be officially registered as sex offender in Satan's own country.