Models work from assumptions. The assumptions you put into them don't have to be plausible; a model simply spits out the consequences of the initial conditions you choose. Thus you could start a simulation of the Earth which started with the tropical seas being frozen and the polar seas being at 38 C. Those initial conditions are impossible, but the computer program will faithfully spit out *some* kind of result.
Well, how about this for a system: instead of counting how many papers a researcher publishes, count the number of times a paper he has written has been cited by somebody else.
This is truer measure in any case. I recently had occasion to review the information science research literature on ontologies, and discovered that about 5% of the literature was absolutely vital to read, and were cited by a substantial fraction of papers in the field -- hundreds of times in my own literature search, and likely thousands of times in total in peer reviewed literature.
About 20% dealt with abstruse and narrow technical topics which were nonetheless useful to people working in the field; or were case studies. Such papers make up the bulk of citations in the research literature, although any single such paper probably gets only a few dozen citations. Still that's useful work.
The remaining 3/4 of papers are trivial, a complete waste of anyone's time to read. They may score a handful of citations, but from authors scraping the bottom of the barrel. They're so trivial, obvious, and unoriginal.
Odd side note: the less an author has to say, the more elaborately he says it. The really important papers tend to be written in straightforward, easily understandable prose. The trivial papers read like parodies of academ-ese.
Well, C.S. Lewis had an interesting take on this. He obviously believed in miracles, but he thought of them as becoming "naturalized", in the way a foreigner becomes a naturalized citizen in his adoptive land, and is subsequently bound by the laws of that land. So when the *supernatural* occurs (e.g. drowning the northwest corner of the continent at the end of the First Age), the consequences should follow *naturally*.
I bring this point up with my fantasy writing friends. Just because your world *has* miraculous things in it doesn't mean *everything* should be a miracle. People should have common-sense responses to miraculous things. If wizards throw lightning bolts in battle, then the cavalry shouldn't charge in a tightly packed formation until they're right at the line of battle.
George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire conspicuously soft-pedals magic, but ironically a lot of the world of those stories fails the naturalization test. For example kind of society depicted is dependent upon consistently generating a massive agricultural surplus, something that's not compatible in my opinion with decade-long winters. But I gave up after only a million words into the stories, so maybe that's explained elsewhere.
This is typically due to eating too much starch and junk food. The problem isn't caused by being poor, but rather is correlated with the same bad financial habits
The biggest problem is this: As soon as you're rich, everybody who's ever known you, or kinda known somebody who's known you, or is working for a good cause comes knocking to ask for a handout.
Read about the guy I was talking about. He bought a mansion, a million dollars worth of cars, a lear jet - all in the first year. He blew $12M in the first year. It had nothing to do with people hitting him up for cash - he blew it.
They're "poor", not in poverty. Two different things.
... as were nearly all examples of tengwar and dwarf-runes we have from Tolkien's own hand.
Yes, mod as "troll" - much easier than making a counterargument.
But in addition, George Bray thinks that socioeconomic factors play into physicians' lack of enthusiasm for treating obesity because obesity is, disproportionately, a disease of poverty.
Poverty is the inability to meet basic needs - water, food, clothing and shelter. People in true poverty are underweight and often die from malnutrition.
In the US, the lower classes (who are "poor") have a big problem with obesity. This is typically due to eating too much starch and junk food. The problem isn't caused by being poor, but rather is correlated with the same bad financial habits - specifically the inability to delay gratification - that's makes them poor in the first place. This doesn't describe *everybody* who is poor in America, but it seems to be a majority. Listen to Dave Ramsey for an hour and you'll hear people who are poor and yet make $100,000/year. Actually, just read a story yesterday about a guy who won $27,000,000 in powerball and died penniless a few years later.
I eat all the meat I want and I never gain weight. It's the starches and sugars that cause problems - meat and fat doesn't make you gain weight if you're not eating a bunch of sugar and starch.
Did this guy just reinvent spreadsheets? There's something to be said for this, but having written in Prolog, which works that way, the 'reactive programming' people have to make a better case than the article does.
On the other hand, one of the big problems in databases is change notification. Microsoft at one point had a research project on this. The concept was that you could make a request to be notified when something of interest changed in the database. This was expressed as an SQL SELECT statement. When some change was made that would affect the output of your pending SELECT, you'd be notified. The problem was to figure out some efficient way to do this with thousands or millions of pending SELECT statements.
Finance people use notifications like that all the time. Limits on stocks, limits on combinations of stocks, changes in key ratios, that sort of thing. But the systems for that are specialized, a special case of a more general problem. The most general form of the problem is that B wants to know when something has changed at A. Most of the solutions for this have problems. Polling is either inefficient or slow. B relying on A to message them on a change has a failure problem. Both approaches can result in overloading A with checks for events that aren't happening.
The point to take away here is that you can generally avoid being charged with "bad faith" by not doing specific bad things. The standard in the bill is much more ambiguous.
On the other side, an infinger can be charged triple damages for "willful infringement". A recent court decision raised that standard to "willful and reckless", which is almost impossible to prove.
There's a 12-volt lead-acid battery in the thing to power the auxiliary systems. It's the same size as a regular automotive battery, but apparently is a sealed type, intended to last the life of the vehicle. Since it doesn't need to provide cranking power, a high-current battery isn't necessary.
Tesla owners have been reporting 12 volt battery failures for months. Usually the charging system reports "12 volt battery failure", but apparently a partial failure is possible, where the aux battery is an energy drain but still functional.
I saw that too, and wondered, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? IF they know what converse means, then they're being ironic, if they don't then it's ironic that they don't, so no matter what you do, it's ironic, only the irony is directed differently depending. In fact, it becomes tautologically ironic, because he might be ironically posing to not know what it means, and thusly showing his irony in a self conscious way. It's like Goedel's "This sentence is false". Only dumb.
'Young people, rightly, are sensitive to the needs to preserve their privacy and to retain internet freedom. And by the way, so am I,' responded the President. 'That's part of not just our First Amendment rights and expectations in this country, but it's particularly something that young people care about..
This is a former constitutional lawyer saying that privacy concerns are a First Amendment concern. WT-actual-F? This is clearly Fourth amendment territory, but oh well. I mean, this is the president after all: we don't need facts when we have authority.
Also, the suggestion that this issue is all the more vital because young people care about it? What smarmy nonsense. It's a bloody constitutional crisis being characterized as an MTV award.
I came here to say the same thing. His obvious misunderstanding of the Constitution in this and other contexts kind of makes me question the whole "constitutional scholar" label.