Research laboratories are exempt from OSHA regulations.
That is not true.
AFAIK, Academic or Industry Lab makes no difference, all research labs are treated the same by OSHA lab regulations. Labs that solely do Quality Assessment/Control procedures for production facilities are the only labs exempt from OSHA lab regulations. Even labs that do environmental testing, or say simple blood testing are covered by OSHA lab regulations. The exemption is really strict, so basically no research or general analysis can be done in the lab.
Last I had heard, Akihabara was the Asia tech city that all geeks had to make a pilgrimage to.
Only if you are into otaku...
If you actually want electronics, Shenzen is your place. However, if you are actually just into PC/computer gear, Guanghua in Taipei is probably a better bet.
No, stinky tofu relationship to tofu is analogous to cheese and milk.
Gutter oil is something totally different, it is usually boiled and filtered, and bleached (in less than sanitary conditions) to a state comparable to normal cooking oil. Unfortunately, although it looks okay, it still contains lots really bad chemicals. If you think you are avoiding it by simply avoiding stinky unfamiliar foods, you (and your digestive track) are simply fooling yourselves.
If you mean by "begging the question" that I assuming the conclusion that extra curricular predict better academic performance, although it's true I presented no evidence, I did work with admissions at the alma-mater and the admissions department coordinated with many other selective schools to mine this data (unfortunately, it is not public data and quite old since I graduated many moons ago).
However, if you mean by "begging the question" in the more colloquial sense that I am implicitly or rhetorically raising another question about selective vs non-selective, that is certainly *not* the case. Although it's true that social anxieties are an important part of college life adaptation, the distribution of people in less selective colleges tends to be in a range where the "book-worm" really is still in the upper part of the distribution (where selective schools are picking off the outliers), and thus don't suffer as much displacement in class ranking (maybe the top person in an average HS will fall to the top 10% of a typical school, where they may actually fall to the 50% percentile or lower in a selective school).
Of course this is all averages, and everyone's experience is different, but one of the primary goals of a typical selective school is to only admit people that have the best chance of successfully graduating and being successful in life (regardless of their SAT score).
You might ask why not just admit people that pay the most tuition or some other criteria, but tuition is really a small part of the financial consideration of a selective school. It's more important to graduate people that will be successful in life later, both for prestige purposes and as a population to solicit future gifts to the institution. Being good a taking tests is not a leading indicator of this.
As others have mentioned, if you assume a normal distribution of test takers and a finite number of questions on a test, accurately measuring anything on the upper tail of the distribution is really not statistically valid (given the number of "trials" to measure the SAT score is also limited and the fact that people game the system). After some point, the measurement is really just a range. For the SAT, where there is more noise than signal probably occurs around 700/800 on a specific test (remember, SAT is also renormalized to match historical distributions, so we are talking about missing 1-3 questions over the entire non-experimental questions you are scored on. If you cutoff is lower (say 600 or so), the measurements are more statistically valid.
Actually, at more selective schools, above a certain level, GPAs and SATs are totally uncorrelated to collegiate performance.
The best indicator of performance at selective schools (as most admission folks at selective schools will tell you), is sustained participation and leadership rolls in Extra Curricular activities (e.g., treasurer of Club X, going to State in sport Y, second chair playing instrument Z, attending Community college classes, volunteering w/ organization W, starting your own business, etc).
This is somewhat because nearly all high achievers have at least a little ego and many book worms don't tend to handle environments where they aren't the top performers grade-wise and have few alternative places to park their egos. Unlike the highly skewed distribution at Lake Wobegon, nearly 1/2 the folks are below average in a typical class.
You would probably be unsurprised at the vast number of applications that have 4.6 GPAs scored perfect on the SAT and as extra-curriculars list paying a "little-piano" and National Honor society. A standing joke is to wonder how little that piano actually is and how hard it must be to hit the note you want on those "little-keys".
We should have RFID incorporated into our license plates so that these scans can be done more efficiently and without optical recognition required. Myriad uses, including monitoring of parking lots a and capacities, sporting events, airports / train stations, toll collection, law enforcement.
Here in calif, we are already creating future...
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
By "this kind of thing", you mean using a camera in public, right? Is that really illegal in Europe?
In many countries, it is effectively illegal to take pictures that would compromise privacy of an individual in public.
Here's a per-country summary in case you are actually interested in learning about this and aren't just spouting typical
Really there's only a right to take a picture in the US.
If you had separate accounts, why not just have the husband write 1/2 the mortgage check and the wife write the other 1/2 to the bank and put both check in the envelope and mail it to the bank? Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the mortgage?
If the husband buys all the food, then presumably he would know how much was spent on food and ask for 1/2 from his wife so he must know not to spend too much or too little if there was a joint account (there must be money in the account to spend before the wife contributes her monthly share). Or if there is a budget for food, you could have a recurring transfer for food money from one account for another. Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the food?
You may not find discussing money and expenses a useful discussion, but that doesn't mandate that solution either.
If you are writing your own printf for a multi-threaded system, you may not want all thread to write into the same buffer, but similarly, you wouldn't necessarily make one thread server (of money) and one thread the client (of client), you might have a thread that join the output of the two thread into a single buffer (say a joint buffer where you store all the characters that you output from the system). Hmm, maybe a *joint* checking account?
Why do you feel it is still necessary to have a separate checking account and only reimburse *him* for mutual expenses? (credit card, I can understand keeping credit separate has some actual benefits)...
Is it some sort his money is our money and my money is my money issue? Or some sort of trust issue? Just asking, to each their own, but since you seemed to make it into some kind of strange point of paying your husband (which is somewhat different than paying your live-in-boyfriend). I assume both names are on the mortgage, (so the bank could come after you if your husband didn't pay it). Why the asymmetry?
I guess I'm the all the money in one pot kind-of person. My wife pays all the bills online from our joint checking account and we are both effectively authorized to transfer money willy-nilly from each other's accounts, but when we were dating, of course it was totally different.
This way, the federal government can prevent those irritating demonstrations like this ones in Ukraine.
Don't worry about it, the government can already just commandeer the cell tower backhaul network and/or central office. This would be a simple escalation from what they are doing in the Ukraine right now by identifying phones near a protest area and sending them this text message...
"Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a riot."
The whole illusion of being able to use your cell phone when the government doesn't want you is really just a delusion anyhow...
No, the police never claimed if what they were doing was illegal or legal. THEY DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is an example of how the government generally claims this is legal...
The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.
A US Supreme court decision effectively decided that absent a change in statute, pen-registers/trap-and-traces do *not* constitute a search or even a reasonable expectation of privacy (as opposed to wire-taps which listen in on the actual communication). This assertion has been used in the past and continues to be the basis of arguments that it is not unconstitutional. As to the legality, that is up to congress, but to date, it isn't illegal, because there are no laws against what they are doing.
The hell if they are going to gonna keep paying Sprint when they can just do it themselves... Oh wait...
But the police are doing something illegal, that's the whole point.
The police claim how they are using the equipment is legal. If they are in fact correct, people might want to change the law, if they are not correct, they are breaking the law. I don't believe this has been established yet from the legal system's point of view (although that doesn't prevent pendants from jumping the gun).