The verification is crucial though. What happens when two scientists claim they can verify a hypothesis, and two thousand scientists say they cannot?
Either two thousand scientists have screwed up badly, or just two have. Which is more likely? Lacking the skills, time & equipment to verify it yourself, who are you going to believe?
A single person can come up with a major paradigm shift that overturns our old models - but not when their results can't be reliably verified, and certainly not when their claims require simply ignoring decades of observations to the contrary.
Luckily, it's entirely because they have been "taking android back" that they've been able to issue a (closed-source) Play Services response to the threat so quickly, to all Google-using android phones regardless of carrier.
If you have any of Google's apps installed, you'll also have Play Services installed - and this has already been updated to detect attempts to use the specific vulnerable certificates involved. If you only get your apps from the Play Store, you're fine, as they've already all been scanned (and no exploit attempts detected). Even if you sideload, so long as you left the Verify Apps checkbox on (default setting), then Play Services will scan any sideloaded apps too (no exploit attempts have been detected that way either).
While the vulnerability is a serious one, it's not something that will concern the vast majority of Google's Android users. It's probably a lot more significant for companies like Amazon, who will have to develop their own response, and (inevitably) for all those millions of Chinese users of generic non-Google Android derivatives.
The only people claiming the carbon tax wasn't working were Coalition politicians (and their apologists), and the companies who didn't want to have to cover the external costs of their businesses. Fact is, it was starting to work quite well, despite the damping effect of Abbott attacking it with all the FUD he could muster.
And now we have economists scratching their heads as to why a conservative government would attack a market-based climate solution while favouring a big direct-action spending program instead:
Roger Jones, a Research Fellow at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, called the repeal "the perfect storm of stupidity".
"It's hard to imagine a more effective combination of poor reasoning and bad policy making," he said.
"A complete disregard of the science of climate change and its impacts. Bad economics and mistrust of market forces."
Sadly for you, the "facts" are on Amazon's side here. Apple was being legally outcompeted, and resorting to illegal collusion needs to be smacked down, regardless of how much they hated seeing their potential marketshare slipping away. Maybe they should have tried to compete by lowering prices further, rather than raising them? Would be a better outcome for consumers.
If 94% of academic economists have fudged things to make their papers look better - what about commercial economists, where they have a stronger financial incentive? What about political economists?
At first I was worried - but then I realised their trust level is already slightly below that of lawyers.
While 35% is definitely possible, I think it's probably above average. I doubt that most wind farms achieve that.
It's not clear where your claim comes from either. It's not like you can just say, "I think [35% is] probably above average. I doubt that most wind farms achieve that."
Googling it, average wind farm capacity factor seem to be around 27-40%, depending on turbine, location etc. Newer model turbines like the GE 1.6-100 claim over 50% CF thanks to design improvements.
This is the same guy that denies the link between passive smoking and cancer, and that asbestos is dangerous. I should introduce him to my friend with mesothelioma. He certainly can't be relied on for the facts.
Nope. There are still a number of "skeptics" claiming that the earth is not warming, and most scientists believe we can still avoid the worst of the warming yet to come (though some significant warming is now inevitable). Also, most economic studies of climate impact & mitigation (e.g. the Stern Review) have concluded that it will be much cheaper to mitigate CO2 emissions ASAP and avoid the costs of adaption.
Depends which temperature proxy you look at, but on average, nope.
Of course there may have been warmer days in the "recent" past, but we have no records of that, so the article's claim stands. And your claim requires ignoring most of the various proxy reconstructions that have been done, so it doesn't hold up either.
The other nice thing about the Samsung UD590, apart from 4K @ 60Hz, is that it presents itself as a single 4K monitor, rather than two half-size monitors tiled next to each other. That can make a big difference to some uses, like running games at lower resolutions. The Asus PB287Q is another such single-tile 4K monitor.
It does mean that the results so far show with confidence that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. This conclusion is deemed strong enough to act on.
There is still much more work to be done on nailing down mechanisms, reducing error bars etc, but none of this is likely to change the above conclusion. That would require both strong new evidence and a counter-explanation for all the results so far.
The point is that, in both cases, the sender/content provider has already paid. If there's an additional cost to transmitting the content across a boundary (different country or different peering service), then in both cases that has already been factored into the cost of sending it, and paid to the local provider (post office or ISP).
By Comcast's reasoning, the parcel sender should also expect a bill from any countries the parcel travels through, despite paying the full postage when sending. If Comcast wants more money for transmitting content, they need to take it up with their neighbour peering providers, not with the content producers or consumers.
It's certainly not hard to see imperfections in a 4K picture, let alone "mathematically and scientifically impossible". Most obviously, you can simply lean closer, and you will see pixels. All claims to "invisible pixels" assume you're at least a given distance away, with average sight.
High contrast makes pixels more visible; anti-aliasing can smooth that, though if not done carefully (with good hinting) it can make font edges look softer. ClearType can also help, though also at a cost of a slight coloured fringing. More resolution definitely helps, as does just leaning back a little.
Then there's all the other ways pictures can look bad. Video compression can introduce blockiness, ringing, and other artefacts that are clearly visible even at 4K. Grain, noise, poor filters etc add their own problems, or exacerbate others. Colour and frame rates differences can cause obvious effects, or a much more subtle sense that something is not right; all of which can make a display look less than gorgeous, despite their resolution - and it can often take practice and experience to spot exactly what the problem is.
I'm sure it was considered (it's a fairly obvious approach after all), but I really doubt that streaming live video to a radio receiver+H.264 decoder for a few seconds uses much less power than popping up a card with an SoC and keeping it there. Then there's the issues of bandwidth, range, responsiveness, reliability, battery drain on your phone as well, and your phone having to be in range to do *anything* as opposed to just transferring the occasional notification or GPS co-ord.
Slashdot Mirror
Do enlighten us - please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
Strangely, all the examples I can find just support the consensus view.
Only if you're in a nuclear family.
It's worth noting that Roger Shawyer (the original inventor) maintains that this effect does not violate Conservation of Momentum.
The verification is crucial though. What happens when two scientists claim they can verify a hypothesis, and two thousand scientists say they cannot?
Either two thousand scientists have screwed up badly, or just two have. Which is more likely? Lacking the skills, time & equipment to verify it yourself, who are you going to believe?
A single person can come up with a major paradigm shift that overturns our old models - but not when their results can't be reliably verified, and certainly not when their claims require simply ignoring decades of observations to the contrary.
Luckily, it's entirely because they have been "taking android back" that they've been able to issue a (closed-source) Play Services response to the threat so quickly, to all Google-using android phones regardless of carrier.
If you have any of Google's apps installed, you'll also have Play Services installed - and this has already been updated to detect attempts to use the specific vulnerable certificates involved. If you only get your apps from the Play Store, you're fine, as they've already all been scanned (and no exploit attempts detected). Even if you sideload, so long as you left the Verify Apps checkbox on (default setting), then Play Services will scan any sideloaded apps too (no exploit attempts have been detected that way either).
While the vulnerability is a serious one, it's not something that will concern the vast majority of Google's Android users. It's probably a lot more significant for companies like Amazon, who will have to develop their own response, and (inevitably) for all those millions of Chinese users of generic non-Google Android derivatives.
The only people claiming the carbon tax wasn't working were Coalition politicians (and their apologists), and the companies who didn't want to have to cover the external costs of their businesses. Fact is, it was starting to work quite well, despite the damping effect of Abbott attacking it with all the FUD he could muster.
And now we have economists scratching their heads as to why a conservative government would attack a market-based climate solution while favouring a big direct-action spending program instead:
Roger Jones, a Research Fellow at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, called the repeal "the perfect storm of stupidity".
"It's hard to imagine a more effective combination of poor reasoning and bad policy making," he said.
"A complete disregard of the science of climate change and its impacts. Bad economics and mistrust of market forces."
I'm curious as to where you read that. My understanding is that book prices rose, by 30-50%.
What part of this can't be done just as well by a human, today? The "follows all the laws" part?
Pretty sure that handovers of stolen goods/drugs/whatever to different vehicles with different drivers already occur.
Sadly for you, the "facts" are on Amazon's side here. Apple was being legally outcompeted, and resorting to illegal collusion needs to be smacked down, regardless of how much they hated seeing their potential marketshare slipping away. Maybe they should have tried to compete by lowering prices further, rather than raising them? Would be a better outcome for consumers.
You'll need a much larger panel than 50cm to charge it that fast. And sunlight. This device should work day & night, regardless of weather.
If 94% of academic economists have fudged things to make their papers look better - what about commercial economists, where they have a stronger financial incentive? What about political economists?
At first I was worried - but then I realised their trust level is already slightly below that of lawyers.
You hardly will find a company putting a 'capacity factor' to the specs of his model.
Maybe you should look at the link I posted. There's one right there.
Perhaps they have a slightly different definition to you?
While 35% is definitely possible, I think it's probably above average. I doubt that most wind farms achieve that.
It's not clear where your claim comes from either. It's not like you can just say, "I think [35% is] probably above average. I doubt that most wind farms achieve that."
Googling it, average wind farm capacity factor seem to be around 27-40%, depending on turbine, location etc. Newer model turbines like the GE 1.6-100 claim over 50% CF thanks to design improvements.
This is the same guy that denies the link between passive smoking and cancer, and that asbestos is dangerous. I should introduce him to my friend with mesothelioma. He certainly can't be relied on for the facts.
Nope. There are still a number of "skeptics" claiming that the earth is not warming, and most scientists believe we can still avoid the worst of the warming yet to come (though some significant warming is now inevitable). Also, most economic studies of climate impact & mitigation (e.g. the Stern Review) have concluded that it will be much cheaper to mitigate CO2 emissions ASAP and avoid the costs of adaption.
Depends which temperature proxy you look at, but on average, nope.
Of course there may have been warmer days in the "recent" past, but we have no records of that, so the article's claim stands. And your claim requires ignoring most of the various proxy reconstructions that have been done, so it doesn't hold up either.
Gen X here, have a car, not bleeding money, would still rather decent public transport - and a subscription to a cheap autonomous taxi service.
The other nice thing about the Samsung UD590, apart from 4K @ 60Hz, is that it presents itself as a single 4K monitor, rather than two half-size monitors tiled next to each other. That can make a big difference to some uses, like running games at lower resolutions. The Asus PB287Q is another such single-tile 4K monitor.
It doesn't mean, "the science is complete".
It does mean that the results so far show with confidence that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. This conclusion is deemed strong enough to act on.
There is still much more work to be done on nailing down mechanisms, reducing error bars etc, but none of this is likely to change the above conclusion. That would require both strong new evidence and a counter-explanation for all the results so far.
The point is that, in both cases, the sender/content provider has already paid. If there's an additional cost to transmitting the content across a boundary (different country or different peering service), then in both cases that has already been factored into the cost of sending it, and paid to the local provider (post office or ISP).
By Comcast's reasoning, the parcel sender should also expect a bill from any countries the parcel travels through, despite paying the full postage when sending. If Comcast wants more money for transmitting content, they need to take it up with their neighbour peering providers, not with the content producers or consumers.
It's certainly not hard to see imperfections in a 4K picture, let alone "mathematically and scientifically impossible". Most obviously, you can simply lean closer, and you will see pixels. All claims to "invisible pixels" assume you're at least a given distance away, with average sight.
High contrast makes pixels more visible; anti-aliasing can smooth that, though if not done carefully (with good hinting) it can make font edges look softer. ClearType can also help, though also at a cost of a slight coloured fringing. More resolution definitely helps, as does just leaning back a little.
Then there's all the other ways pictures can look bad. Video compression can introduce blockiness, ringing, and other artefacts that are clearly visible even at 4K. Grain, noise, poor filters etc add their own problems, or exacerbate others. Colour and frame rates differences can cause obvious effects, or a much more subtle sense that something is not right; all of which can make a display look less than gorgeous, despite their resolution - and it can often take practice and experience to spot exactly what the problem is.
From the Chrome Developer page:
1. Unzip the .crx file
2. Go to chrome://extensions
3. Tick on Developer Mode
4. Click Load Unpacked Extension...
5. Select and install.
I'm sure it was considered (it's a fairly obvious approach after all), but I really doubt that streaming live video to a radio receiver+H.264 decoder for a few seconds uses much less power than popping up a card with an SoC and keeping it there. Then there's the issues of bandwidth, range, responsiveness, reliability, battery drain on your phone as well, and your phone having to be in range to do *anything* as opposed to just transferring the occasional notification or GPS co-ord.
[Citation needed]