We're suddenly back in 1994, and "the job's not done until WordPerfect won't run!"
I normally program 60+ hours/wk, but I'm only in my 60's. I know a guy in his 80's, who normally programs 80+ hrs/wk.
You young punks are pathetic.
The State government would have the power to regulate any monopolies inside its borders, including electrical providers, natural gas providers, phone companies, and yes Internet providers. - The local government/town that granted the exclusive license to Comcast also has the right to regulate, per the terms of the monopoly. Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.
That's not necessarily so.
Indiana got a Telecommunications Reform Act a few years ago, written by the telecommunications industry (thanks to Mitch Daniels).
Cities are forbidden from competing with private telecomm. Regulation is done at the state level (which is reliably Republican, so only regulates consumers).
The birthday collision illustrated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Even with 365 days a year, there is 50% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.
Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.
Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?
If each of the 26 DNA sections were reduced to "Yes" or "No", the would be 2^26 possibilities.
If instead of 2 possibilities, there were 10, how many times does 3x10^8 go into 10^26? Just saying.
Really, a Faraday Box would totally make this a non-issue.
It's OK to have some holes in them, like for a door. Minor perturbation (use conformal mapping to verify).
Math is fun!:)
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to find something wrong with it?"
That used to be what Science was. Of course, that was when truth was the goal.
That's still the goal of Science.
But it's not the goal of everyone. Just as with tobacco and cancer, there are a lot of people with vested interests.
But the ice is melting.
Irrelevant. If you can't take some trolls, maybe you shouldn't be in such a controversial topic. The accuracy of your data is far more significant than your petty emotions, especially if your data will be affecting trillions of dollars worldwide.
First, that sounds a lot like "if you're not willing to get beat up by my goons, don't say things I don't like."
Second, your emotional attachment to dollars seems to be driving your brain.
Don't neglect "gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information." Plato was as good a physicist.
If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.
It's more politics than science.
Somebody didn't get tenure.
I didn't get tenure either, and there were serious political issues, the first time. But that's not a problem with peer review (which I still am asked to do, occasionally). Most PhD's never get tenure, at least not in a research university. Academia is one bitch of a career path.
I still publish papers, in less-prestigious journals and conferences, mostly peer-reviewed. Some papers are turned down. So it goes...
You left out turtles! all the way down!
This is actually rather obvious. If Jimbo tells you that there's a 1% chance that your tire will go flat if you don't fix it, that's not 1% if Jimbo is wrong 50% of the time. At best, it's 50.5%. Or something like that.
You need to know the probability that it will go flat if Jimbo is right, and the probability if he's wrong. You don't.
Basically, they're saying that the research provides a wider error bound than it may claim, assuming that scientists uniformly make logical mistakes--which they very probably do.
What an interesting assertion. Foolish scientists!
The leap from "undecidable" to "random" just might be a hint that this is nonsense.
"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"
