Comment Re:Mine showed a photo I was tagged in... (Score 2) 218
APK's host files as interpreted by Bennett Haselton would have been a better bet.
APK's host files as interpreted by Bennett Haselton would have been a better bet.
There is no way to validly misinterpret "has a negative mass squared" it clearly means "has the square of a negative mass" which is nonsense.
Translation: "I am ignorant of what this term means to physicists, and I declare my ignorance trumps their knowledge."
This is a scientific paper being written for the author's peers, none of whom would ever misinterpret it. I've seen this issue come up in a couple of places where laypeople are confused by the language of physics.
This is not a problem with the language of physics: it is a problem with laypeople.
I'm all for clear scientific communication, but at the end of the day, communication is hard and worrying about how some random person on the 'Net might misinterpret a term you use every day in your professional work is just not a good use of anyone's precious attention.
When I write poetry I do so in a pretty technical way. If people don't appreciate that, sucks to be them, because they are not my audience. I'm the same way in scientific communication: I write for my peers, and everyone else does the same. Let the popular science authors do the translation. They need the work.
The primary difficulty here is going to be the same data that was really tought to reconcile with in the OPERA experiment, namely the data from SN 1987A.
I had the same thought, but it turns out not to be the case. Given the model he's working with, the neutrinos will be as much above the speed of light as they would have been below it if they had the same real mass (0.3 eV or something like that.)
For ~10 MeV neutrinos this gives gamma absurdly close to unity, and it's as impossible to distinguish neutrinos traveling just over c from ones traveling at c from ones traveling just under c.
The paper actually mentions SN1987A and talks a bit about the time resolution required.
A swing and a miss.
Still you can't deny that lefties have all the sense of humour of an average lake trout. The best yuks anyone's ever gotten out of them have been at their expense, and so the circle is complete.
Oh I'm not a righty.
... either people that don't like slapstick comedy or people that don't like the political message of the movie.
Actually read the bad reviews. They're like reading bad Amazon reviews... "This 20 dollar jack is no where near as good as my 400 dollar jacket... 1 star!" Or "I can't recharge my computer with this USB cable... 1 star!"... They're fucking stupid.
They keep saying stuff like "the humor is crude"... really, you complete waste of human life? That is fucking shocking. It is a stupid screw ball comedy, fuckwit.
Anyway, you just need to filter the idiot reviewers from the ones that understand what genre they're reviewing. And my god there are a lot of fucking idiots working for the mainstream newspapers. I read these reviews and can see very clearly why these newspapers are having circulation issues. They are staffed almost entirely with morons.
Require that students work during their summer break and I'll compromise. As a further sign of my willingness to compromise... simply require that they do something constructive. Anything. Sitting on their asses eating potato chips is not acceptable. Change nothing and I'll assume a lot of students do not do anything productive during their summer break and maintain my position unchanged.
Deal?
I thought my point was self evident, but perhaps not.
[quote]As far as I know, or at least in my area, the contracts with the individual teachers are for the term of the school year. Roughly 9 months. 3 months not.
Unless you are suggesting a massive pay cut, the cure is simple. Extend the contract to year round, and make the pay reflect that period. This would not be unlike a regular 32 hour, or 40 hour contract with an employee. Where I worked we had a type of employee who was essentially full time part time. Every year, they signed a contract for a specific number of hours.[/quote]
Maintaining the same pay per hour is fine so long as the annual pay is comparable to what we pay similiarly skilled people in the labor force for the same number of hours.
You might get a pay cut in some cases because your pay effectively covers your summer break as if you were working in some cases. Where as other jobs have people working through that time.
I don't think it is unreasonable to have teachers paid the same amount as other people in the labor force that are are difficult to find and have the same amount of education.
If you do get a pay cut and don't like it, this means I can replace you without a lot of trouble. If you are not getting a pay cut then I don't see the problem.
I have no problem with extending the contracts. I do have a problem if the final annual number is non-competitive.
[quote]I doubt even in your anti-union fervor, you would support a 25 percent increase in working hours without a commensurate increase in pay, especially since many (most, all?) contracts are already written in that way.[/quote]
I wouldn't expect you to work for wages that were unreasonable. But are you claiming that all current contracts are reasonable? We've seen a massive increase in some teacher compensation packages over the last couple decades. I will not assume your current contract is competitive and just increase it sight unseen by 25 percent.
Rather, I agree you should be paid what you are worth per hour and I want those hours worked. That is the best you'll get out of me on that issue. Your wages must be subject to market conditions. Just like everyone else.
Tyrants of any stripe fear nothing so much as laughter.
That's why lefties have no sense of humour.
Except, you know, being made out of flimsy printed plastic without even a T-bar for additional strength, and having one less degree of freedom than the uARM, and being smaller than the uARM, yeah, it's just like it...
The International Space Station is a vast outpost, its scale inspiring awe even in the astronauts who have constructed it. From the edge of one solar panel to the edge of the opposite one, the station stretches the length of a football field, including the end zones. The station weighs nearly 1 million pounds, and its solar arrays cover more than an acre. It’s as big inside as a six-bedroom house, more than 10 times the size of a space shuttle’s interior. Astronauts regularly volunteer how spacious it feels. It’s so big that during the early years of three-person crews, the astronauts would often go whole workdays without bumping into one another, except at mealtimes.
On the station, the ordinary becomes peculiar. The exercise bike for the American astronauts has no handlebars. It also has no seat. With no gravity, it’s just as easy to pedal furiously, feet strapped in, without either. You can watch a movie while you pedal by floating a laptop anywhere you want. But station residents have to be careful about staying in one place too long. Without gravity to help circulate air, the carbon dioxide you exhale has a tendency to form an invisible cloud around your head. You can end up with what astronauts call a carbon-dioxide headache.
Even by the low estimates, it costs $350,000 an hour to keep the station flying, which makes astronauts’ time an exceptionally expensive resource—and explains their relentless scheduling: Today’s astronauts typically start work by 7:30 in the morning, Greenwich Mean Time, and stop at 7 o’clock in the evening. They are supposed to have the weekends off, but Saturday is devoted to cleaning the station—vital, but no more fun in orbit than housecleaning down here—and some work inevitably sneaks into Sunday.
Life in space is so complicated that a lot of logistics have to be off-loaded to the ground if astronauts are to actually do anything substantive. Just building the schedule for the astronauts in orbit on the U.S. side of the station requires a full-time team of 50 staffers.
Almost anyone you talk with about the value of the Space Station eventually starts talking about Mars. When they do, it’s clear that we don’t yet have a very grown-up space program. The folks we send to space still don’t have any real autonomy, because no one was imagining having to “practice” autonomy when the station was designed and built. On a trip to Mars, the distances are so great that a single voice or email exchange would involve a 30-minute round-trip. That one change, among the thousand others that going to Mars would require, would alter the whole dynamic of life in space. The astronauts would have to handle things themselves.
That could be the real value of the Space Station—to shift NASA’s human exploration program from entirely Earth-controlled to more astronaut-directed, more autonomous. This is not a high priority now; it would be inconvenient, inefficient. But the station’s value could be magnified greatly were NASA to develop a real ethic, and a real plan, for letting the people on the mission assume more responsibility for shaping and controlling it. If we have any greater ambitions for human exploration in space, that’s as important as the technical challenges. Problems of fitness and food supply are solvable. The real question is what autonomy for space travelers would look like—and how Houston can best support it. Autonomy will not only shape the psychology and planning of the mission; it will shape the design of the spacecraft itself.
Didn't the US say they were going to try and get North Korea's internet access cut?
It was suggested by "security researchers".
Sadly, it took more candy than they had on hand to bribe the 12 year old in Des Moines, Iowa to stage the BGP attack against the 4 routers necessary to take North Korea of the Internet, so it was several days until the attack went forward.
Obviously, if it's located in the nose... then they need to replace EOTS with the Super New Optical Targeting System, or SNOTS.
You're assuming that students study art or something during their summer break. They don't.
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson