I'd go with maglev cables. Have some sort of base or track on the floor that would keep the cables levitated. Less strain on the metals inside. A clearer path to your audio purity.
Isn't that how all businesses work these days, anyway? You can't start a business and expect to be able to support yourself until your business starts making money. This is only feasible if you are able to get into huge amounts of debt or if you already have plenty of resources (i.e, rich).
"Non-profit organizations like Code.org, backed by large corporations and small firms alike, are rallying for “computer science” to become a core subject..."
"The movement envisions to produce 9-to-5 code monkeys who can write loops and conditionals, but who do not have any passion or true understanding of their craft."
I think those are the only two points you need to draw a line to the conclusion that this movement aims to reduce the cost to businesses of employing coders. It's a marketing campaign stemming from companies' frustration at having to pay programmers well above the minimum wage.
More accurate title: "Mark Zuckerberg Just Gave 18 Million Facebook Shares to Charities, One of Which is His Own Charity"
Is there precedence for giving stocks to charities? To me that doesn't seem quite the same as donating to charity. More of a PR move than an act of good will.
If someone were planning on giving to charity anyway, it would be crazy to pay the taxes on the appreciated shares and give what is left over after taxes to the charity, when you could instead just give the shares (the charity would still get the full value even if the shares were immediately sold, because most charities are tax exempt).
Then how do you know that the evidence is very strong? You'd have to have strong evidence that the evidence is strong, ad infinitum. That was essentially Plato's definition of knowledge, "justified true belief." Then a guy named Gettier came around and showed that you can have strong evidence supporting a belief, and still be wrong. Then a guy named Nozick[1] came along and provided his own definition of knowledge, and that brings us up to the early 1980's.
There's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to figuring out exactly what "knowledge" is, Epistemology. The "brain in the vat" problem has be considered in context[2].
"If two sides of a triangular garden are 3 and 4 feet respectively, find the length of the third side."
Okay, hand me a tape measure.
In a middle school algebra class we had a word problem on a test that had us divide by the number of cards in a deck of cards. I didn't think this was a fair question, because it assumed that everyone knew how many cards were in a deck of cards. I went to the teacher's desk and whispered this concern to her and she said "Come on, even my 5 year old knows how many cards are in a deck of cards."
Not 10 minutes later, another student raised his hand and asked how many cards were in a deck of cards.
> In a middle school algebra class we had a word problem on a test that had us divide by the number of cards in a deck of cards. I didn't think this was a fair question, because it assumed that everyone knew how many cards were in a deck of cards. I went to the teacher's desk and whispered this concern to her and she said "Come on, even my 5 year old knows how many cards are in a deck of cards."
Just for reasonably-common playing card decks, I can think of at least three possibilities -- 48 (standard pinochle deck), 52 (poker deck w/o jokers), and 54 (poker deck w/jokers). And in middle school -- since there was a lot of card playing in my house -- I probably would have been aware of all three.
