I back the women. Absolutely. Would be nice, though, if the women wouldn't lump me in with the abusers by claiming that my entire field/group/hobby/gender/whatever has a problem.
I'm fine with the chip; that protects me, the bank, and the retailer. I am NOT fine with the PIN. My signature can't be stolen; if someone steals my card, the signature on the sales slip proves it's not me. But if someone steals your PIN they have your every penny.
It happened to me with a debit card. I welcome the chip, but of they add a PIN I'll cancel all my cards and go back to cash and checks, even though they're nowhere as convenient.
I hadn't had any of the accounts I'd used, either, and wasn't sure which one it was. Still got the account back, give 'em a try.
I had cataract surgery on that eye two years before the retina came loose. I did know a couple of guys who had vitrectomies followed by cataract surgery, but the needles don't go through the lens, they go in through the whites (photos at wikipedia). I suspect that a vitrectomy involves steroids; steroid eyedrops for an eye infection caused my cataract.
Holy crap I didn't realize that. A self-selected online survey? And based at that absolutely meaningless metric, "science has a sexual assault problem?" Fuck that.
It wasn't worth the effort, I just cut and pasted from the manuscript. It's bad enough posting journals, I take a bit more care with them.
Also, whether a woman finds an advance to be "harassment" or not depends on whether or not she's interested in the man.
So let that be a lesson to you. If you want to avoid harassment:
1) Be handsome
2) Be attractive
3) Don't be unattractive
Agreed. I'm sick of getting lumped into a "victimizer group" constantly. There are assholes who harass and assault women and should be dealt with. But it's got nothing to do with me.
Sexism absolutely exists. There are those who, upon learning Steve is bad at math will say, "Wow Steve, you suck at math." But upon learning that Amy is bad at math will say "Girls suck at math."
But without irony, men in different groups are lumped together because of the actions of some assholes.
Some women are harassed in field research and therefore "science has a sexual assault problem?" No, the assholes who harassed the women have a problem.
Last month we had the "gamergate" blow-up where some troll on the internet threated a woman who was involved with video games. Thereafter we had to hear that "gamers have a sexism problem." No we don't. That deranged asshole has a problem. Not "gamers."
I play games. I'm not a sexist. I...work in engineering but have conducted scientific research at a university and have published papers. So, I'm tangentially a scientist. And I'm not a sexist. The media people who write these stories need to stop the sweeping generalizations and quit lumping me and people like me in with a few assholes who happen to have the same interests I do.
comments about physical beauty
So, "your hair looks nice" is sexual harassment?
Still, though, my cat has never figured out he will never catch the Red Dot of Mystery.
And, yea, let's get onto that untruth - that war is somehow always economically irrational. Seizing buffer lands, trade routes, ports, or natural resources is hardly irrational.
And back in the day, slaves. Tired of working you fields? Gather up the men, invade the neighboring tribe and capture their people. Takes you a few days, maybe a week. Now you can sit back and let these people till your fields for the rest of their lives. Slavery is extremely economically advantageous.
Actually, I read in Will and Ariel Durant's Story of Civilization that every prehistoric community practice cannibalism. When you fought the neighboring tribe for access to hunting/gathering grounds, there was no need to spare them. You killed them and ate them. You couldn't keep them as slaves because there was nothing for them to do that's helpful to you. You'd have to give them weapons to hunt which would be used against you. It wasn't until the invention of agriculture when you could force people to stay in one spot and work your fields to feed you that it made sense to keep them alive and use them as slaves. Agriculture and slavery ended cannibalism (mostly).
You are right, you did include that in your 4.4e-23
Test: 10^-16 (10 carrot -16)
It is a bit worse than that. k = 1.38x 10^(-16) erg/K you are using 10^32 too much energy due to a sign flip. OTOH I'll grant K = 290 rather than 3.2K since I'd assume the computer was on earth not in deep space.
There is also one more complication in that calculation, cooling. This isn't going to matter if you are running the computation fast. But once we get to about 1000 years it throws your numbers way off. We throw off 3.9 x 10^24 J of heat from the sun per year at the current temperature. We'd be throwing off heat much faster with an atmosphere containing the oceans. So it isn't a situation where we throw off more heat essentially linearly as the temperature rises. As a back of the envelope calculation earth's energy loss goes up by 50% per 10C i.e. the hotter it is the thicker the atmosphere (due to water) the more heat loss. I have no idea what happens with an atmosphere with a huge chunk of the ocean in but, but just extrapolating to raise the surface temperature to 100C I'm thinking you are losing around 5 x 10^25 J / year due to cooling.
So I'm thinking your quip works for 256 bits if the computation occurs in reasonable time (say a years, decade, a few centuries) but if you let it go slower....
Counting through all possible values of a 128-bit number would use enough energy to raise the oceans to 100 decrees Celsius and then convert all of the water to steam.
I don't follow. There are about 2.5E46 molecules of water in the ocean. 2^128 ~ 3.4*10^38. Seems like you would need a lot more energy than just counting to 2^128.