I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.
Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks. If this were a server processor, I could see the value in an enhanced remote server-kill. Because these are basic home-use processors though, remote kill viruses probably won't get much farther than proof-of-concept.
Botnets are much more lucrative in the malware world - processor uptime is much more valuable than processor downtime.
You're almost certainly correct about that; I should have been clearer. Rosling wasn't gathering the data, just presenting it.
I was just surprised to hear North Korea's life expectancy estimated so high.
Ahh - cheers mate, I was also quite surprised.
Thought that was the argumentative standpoint, but after a re-read and the above comment it's clearly not.
I actually wouldn't be terribly surprised if both the income and life expectancy are off. Most countries have an average income that's 2/3rds of their per-capita GDP (which can more accurately be measured by exports) considering South Korea's Per-capita GDP is $1,900, the actual average income is more likely to be closer to $1,250 (not that it is guaranteed to be)
So yes, there are very likely some serious discrepancies with countries like South Korea that view the rest of the world as enemies.
While that may be true, do you think this graph was made off of a census specifically sanctioned within the borders of North Korea by Hans Rosling himself, or do you think he's going by existing census and income information?!
I'm not saying the data is correct, I'm saying that dot in the lower left quadrant of the graph is Afghanistan and not North Korea.
While the world's life expectancy has obviously increased, there is a very clear best-fit line that can be drawn at any time with quite obviously a very strong statistical significance.
Given that North Korea has an average life expectancy of 63.8 and a per-capita income of $1,700, that would put it solidly above the 50 year line. The North Korea dot is most likely the one slightly above and to the left of India.
P.S. - the "rank with conservative propaganda" is meant for the parent and not the gp. The gp was merely inciting a partisan comment like the one I originally replied to. Editing error on my part.
If I had modpoints I'd definitely mark this and the parent what they are - flamebait.
Let's face it, whether it is via donations or via taxed handouts, both systems will create the same type of dependence and when the money dries up they will create the same resentment.
With respect to the parent post - While I don't think complete redistribution of wealth is a wise idea, it's apparent that the parent post ignores the fact that the vast majority of tax money is not given directly back to poor people. Sure, there are programs that do that, but most government programs create large infrastructure projects. Roads, regulatory agencies and military posts are examples. Guess what, construction and maintenance of all of the above create quite a few jobs also.
I'd also like to state the current tax bracketing system is set up based roughly on disposable income, so yes, the wealthy do give up more because they can do so much more comfortably without vastly affecting their quality of life.
With respect to the grandparent - why even bother inciting the argument in the first place? Why not just be happy that a whole lot of money is going to head to people that need it?
So basically agree that "redistribution of wealth" is not the appropriate thing to do, but because your post is rank with conservative propaganda I don't see how it's anything but flaimbait.
Weather models (which can easily be objectively checked via existing and coming weather patterns) are an attempt to describe the weather on small scale in great detail)
Climate models (which cannot easily be objectively checked via weather data) are an attempt to describe the average weather in an area over a large period of time. The only evidence for or against is over periods of hundreds to thousands of years as regional or even global averages.
The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance, and they are at a huge disadvantage from human nature because people use weather fallacies to discredit climate all the time.
Just because a climate model predicts lower-than-normal wind patterns, doesn't mean the windiest day on record for isolated regions can't happen during that period without invalidating the model.
Just because a climate model predicts periods of colder-than-normal climates, doesn't mean the hottest day on record for isolated locations can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.
Just because a climate model predicts cloudier-than-normal patterns, doesn't mean the sunniest stretch of weather on record for some regions can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.
This is exactly what happens on a daily basis though. We have an idea that short-term climate models are getting closer and some are more accurate than others, but we don't have enough data to show statistical significance to even decade-length climate models. If you get to century-or-greater climate models, we have historical data and estimations to work off of, but no empirical "check" data to work off of.
The mere suggestion that climate models are not accurately predicting shows you are suffering from this exact same fallacious logic.
Paying for gasoline when they can just as easily use a battery and save tons of money over the lifetime of the car.
That's kind of a short-sighted economic summary.
For instance, the extra gasoline cost of a 30 MPG car over an electric car is around $9000 after 100,000. I'd say this is about the limit to the reliability of a gasoline car.
With that being said there are many more factors which would make electric cars more or less advantageous. For instance:
How much more does a battery conversion or battery-powered car currently cost? The Volt's Hybrid-grade batteries are already (currently) $16,000 and a pure-electric car would need at least that equivalent.
How much more or less maintenance will an all electric car need? They may not need oil changes (depending on design) but if the battery or electric motor has far more or less life than an average car engine, that can vastly tilt the equation.
What is the longest trip that you plan to take and do you have 2-10 hours to take a break every couple hundred miles? Refueling a gasoline car takes much less time than charging an electric car so if you intend to go 200+ miles in a single trip, you will either need to rent a gas car, buy a hybrid, or buy another full gasoline car. The all-electric solution only remains ideal for short and mid commuters.
I'm not saying all-electric could never be a good solution, but just because it's electric does not mean you'll save money.
I'll assume you meant this to be analogous to the case at hand as a contrarian viewpoint.
In those cases, damages can be shown although I do agree they have and are probably vastly overestimated. You won't ever hear me say there are no know abuses of the court system, nor is every judgment fair, I'll simply say that is the intent of the court system and it should be treated as such. For that reason, the judge in this case got the ruling very much right as there was no proof of any damages.
Actually, I think the intent of the article is to show that while Verizon has a 4th gen awesome network, they still have a pricing framework that's about 5 years obsolete.
Google wasn't trespassing "innocently" or "by mistake"; they were engaged in commercial activity and did what they did intentionally.
I'd be interested in seeing how Google would react if someone drove into their parking lot, hauled out a camera and started photographing their campus, their employees and their employees' cars, then claimed they weren't doing anything that Google wasn't themselves doing. I'm going to guess the answer would involve the Mountain View police and potentially DHS, (given that it's a high-value economic target to anti-capitalists).
Actually, a few quick corrections - While Google intended to take photographs, there is no proof they intended to trespass which is the aim of this particular lawsuit. There is also no proof that Google intended to extort or otherwise maliciously use the photographs they've gained.
Judging by the tone of your final statement, your envisioned use of the Google pics may not be so innocent. While I agree you have just as much right to be on the Boring's private property as you do Google's, both entities have just as much right to sue you for trespassing and damages caused by your actions.
I'm intrigued by the court's treatment of the privacy issues, though. In particular, we occasionally see stories around here where trespass law--and sometimes copyright law--is used to shut down and even jail photographers taking pictures in public places... but here we have the opposite, photography taking place in a private (if not entirely "private") space and the response is nominative damages against a wealthy corporation. It's a frustrating disconnect.
While I agree that both of those factors should be considered, IMHO (and I believe in the court's opinion too) the intent of the photographs is the determining factor.
In many cases where courts have ruled against invasion of privacy in public places, the intent of the photographs was generally deformation of character to extortion and blackmail. When looking at the Google case, the pictures taken were not aimed to directly or even indirectly attack the Plaintiff, but instead was part of an automatic car system which either took a wrong turn or was mapped improperly.
While it's an interesting contrast, it makes sense in light of all factors.
Even though the details are pretty brief, it sounds like a good ruling.
I think far too many people think that just because somebody wrongs you, you should be entitled to millions of dollars when you sue them even though what they did isn't all that damaging. Considering they could prove no ill effect to the Google car coming on to their property, they had no right to the $25,000 they claimed.
I could see this as being an issue if one of the members of the house was in the witness protection program and had to be relocated because of the image or something similar to that, but there was no real damage here. Highly publicized rulings like this really help in the fight against frivolous lawsuits by putting those types of people back in check. Courts aren't designed to make someone unfairly rich, they're designed to recoup actual damages and that's it.
Actually, your "no" is technically incorrect because both the GP and the rest of your post are correct. Ads require retrieval and submission through a CDN as well as delivery through your ISP so resources on both end are being wasted.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't already?!
I've had my computer, "Cardboardbox," up and running for 3 years now!
It even started out running in the MSI box it came in with a couple modifications (i.e. Duct Tape) to the box.
As I said in one of my FB posts:
The whole zodiac system is a CANCER on our society.
We should LIBRArate ourselves from it before our whole society ends in PICES.
"triumph". Did they make a note of their "huge sucess". Find it hard to overstate their satisfaction?
Personally I'm not very GlaD right now...
They said there'd be cake.
I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.
Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks. If this were a server processor, I could see the value in an enhanced remote server-kill. Because these are basic home-use processors though, remote kill viruses probably won't get much farther than proof-of-concept.
Botnets are much more lucrative in the malware world - processor uptime is much more valuable than processor downtime.
You're almost certainly correct about that; I should have been clearer. Rosling wasn't gathering the data, just presenting it.
I was just surprised to hear North Korea's life expectancy estimated so high.
Ahh - cheers mate, I was also quite surprised.
Thought that was the argumentative standpoint, but after a re-read and the above comment it's clearly not.
I actually wouldn't be terribly surprised if both the income and life expectancy are off. Most countries have an average income that's 2/3rds of their per-capita GDP (which can more accurately be measured by exports) considering South Korea's Per-capita GDP is $1,900, the actual average income is more likely to be closer to $1,250 (not that it is guaranteed to be)
So yes, there are very likely some serious discrepancies with countries like South Korea that view the rest of the world as enemies.
While that may be true, do you think this graph was made off of a census specifically sanctioned within the borders of North Korea by Hans Rosling himself, or do you think he's going by existing census and income information?!
I'm not saying the data is correct, I'm saying that dot in the lower left quadrant of the graph is Afghanistan and not North Korea.
What are you talking about?
While the world's life expectancy has obviously increased, there is a very clear best-fit line that can be drawn at any time with quite obviously a very strong statistical significance.
P.S. here's a great map of life expectancy by country
It's pretty clear the lowest life expectancy in Asia is Afghanistan.
Is the lone red dot remaining in the Sick & Poor quadrant North Korea by chance?
Actually no, it isn't
Given that North Korea has an average life expectancy of 63.8 and a per-capita income of $1,700, that would put it solidly above the 50 year line. The North Korea dot is most likely the one slightly above and to the left of India.
P.S. - the "rank with conservative propaganda" is meant for the parent and not the gp. The gp was merely inciting a partisan comment like the one I originally replied to.
Editing error on my part.
If I had modpoints I'd definitely mark this and the parent what they are - flamebait.
Let's face it, whether it is via donations or via taxed handouts, both systems will create the same type of dependence and when the money dries up they will create the same resentment.
With respect to the parent post - While I don't think complete redistribution of wealth is a wise idea, it's apparent that the parent post ignores the fact that the vast majority of tax money is not given directly back to poor people. Sure, there are programs that do that, but most government programs create large infrastructure projects. Roads, regulatory agencies and military posts are examples. Guess what, construction and maintenance of all of the above create quite a few jobs also.
I'd also like to state the current tax bracketing system is set up based roughly on disposable income, so yes, the wealthy do give up more because they can do so much more comfortably without vastly affecting their quality of life.
With respect to the grandparent - why even bother inciting the argument in the first place? Why not just be happy that a whole lot of money is going to head to people that need it? So basically agree that "redistribution of wealth" is not the appropriate thing to do, but because your post is rank with conservative propaganda I don't see how it's anything but flaimbait.
*CaptainPatent found this review to be helpful*
Climate models != Weather models.
Weather models (which can easily be objectively checked via existing and coming weather patterns) are an attempt to describe the weather on small scale in great detail)
Climate models (which cannot easily be objectively checked via weather data) are an attempt to describe the average weather in an area over a large period of time. The only evidence for or against is over periods of hundreds to thousands of years as regional or even global averages.
The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance, and they are at a huge disadvantage from human nature because people use weather fallacies to discredit climate all the time.
Just because a climate model predicts lower-than-normal wind patterns, doesn't mean the windiest day on record for isolated regions can't happen during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts periods of colder-than-normal climates, doesn't mean the hottest day on record for isolated locations can't occur during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts cloudier-than-normal patterns, doesn't mean the sunniest stretch of weather on record for some regions can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.
This is exactly what happens on a daily basis though. We have an idea that short-term climate models are getting closer and some are more accurate than others, but we don't have enough data to show statistical significance to even decade-length climate models. If you get to century-or-greater climate models, we have historical data and estimations to work off of, but no empirical "check" data to work off of.
The mere suggestion that climate models are not accurately predicting shows you are suffering from this exact same fallacious logic.
There's no need to worry about proliferation... Now excuse me...
Come Mr. Bigglesworth
*places pinky to mouth*
I dunno, I think their last addition to the catalog was still better.
Paying for gasoline when they can just as easily use a battery and save tons of money over the lifetime of the car.
That's kind of a short-sighted economic summary.
For instance, the extra gasoline cost of a 30 MPG car over an electric car is around $9000 after 100,000. I'd say this is about the limit to the reliability of a gasoline car.
With that being said there are many more factors which would make electric cars more or less advantageous. For instance:
How much more does a battery conversion or battery-powered car currently cost? The Volt's Hybrid-grade batteries are already (currently) $16,000 and a pure-electric car would need at least that equivalent. How much more or less maintenance will an all electric car need? They may not need oil changes (depending on design) but if the battery or electric motor has far more or less life than an average car engine, that can vastly tilt the equation. What is the longest trip that you plan to take and do you have 2-10 hours to take a break every couple hundred miles? Refueling a gasoline car takes much less time than charging an electric car so if you intend to go 200+ miles in a single trip, you will either need to rent a gas car, buy a hybrid, or buy another full gasoline car. The all-electric solution only remains ideal for short and mid commuters.
I'm not saying all-electric could never be a good solution, but just because it's electric does not mean you'll save money.
Step 1) Sell the car at a loss. ...
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!!!
Wow...
I'll assume you meant this to be analogous to the case at hand as a contrarian viewpoint.
In those cases, damages can be shown although I do agree they have and are probably vastly overestimated. You won't ever hear me say there are no know abuses of the court system, nor is every judgment fair, I'll simply say that is the intent of the court system and it should be treated as such. For that reason, the judge in this case got the ruling very much right as there was no proof of any damages.
Actually, I think the intent of the article is to show that while Verizon has a 4th gen awesome network, they still have a pricing framework that's about 5 years obsolete.
Google wasn't trespassing "innocently" or "by mistake"; they were engaged in commercial activity and did what they did intentionally.
I'd be interested in seeing how Google would react if someone drove into their parking lot, hauled out a camera and started photographing their campus, their employees and their employees' cars, then claimed they weren't doing anything that Google wasn't themselves doing. I'm going to guess the answer would involve the Mountain View police and potentially DHS, (given that it's a high-value economic target to anti-capitalists).
Actually, a few quick corrections - While Google intended to take photographs, there is no proof they intended to trespass which is the aim of this particular lawsuit. There is also no proof that Google intended to extort or otherwise maliciously use the photographs they've gained.
Judging by the tone of your final statement, your envisioned use of the Google pics may not be so innocent. While I agree you have just as much right to be on the Boring's private property as you do Google's, both entities have just as much right to sue you for trespassing and damages caused by your actions.
I'm intrigued by the court's treatment of the privacy issues, though. In particular, we occasionally see stories around here where trespass law--and sometimes copyright law--is used to shut down and even jail photographers taking pictures in public places... but here we have the opposite, photography taking place in a private (if not entirely "private") space and the response is nominative damages against a wealthy corporation. It's a frustrating disconnect.
While I agree that both of those factors should be considered, IMHO (and I believe in the court's opinion too) the intent of the photographs is the determining factor.
In many cases where courts have ruled against invasion of privacy in public places, the intent of the photographs was generally deformation of character to extortion and blackmail. When looking at the Google case, the pictures taken were not aimed to directly or even indirectly attack the Plaintiff, but instead was part of an automatic car system which either took a wrong turn or was mapped improperly.
While it's an interesting contrast, it makes sense in light of all factors.
Even though the details are pretty brief, it sounds like a good ruling.
I think far too many people think that just because somebody wrongs you, you should be entitled to millions of dollars when you sue them even though what they did isn't all that damaging. Considering they could prove no ill effect to the Google car coming on to their property, they had no right to the $25,000 they claimed.
I could see this as being an issue if one of the members of the house was in the witness protection program and had to be relocated because of the image or something similar to that, but there was no real damage here. Highly publicized rulings like this really help in the fight against frivolous lawsuits by putting those types of people back in check. Courts aren't designed to make someone unfairly rich, they're designed to recoup actual damages and that's it.
Don't be such a boob.
Glad we could keep you abreast of the situation.
Actually, your "no" is technically incorrect because both the GP and the rest of your post are correct. Ads require retrieval and submission through a CDN as well as delivery through your ISP so resources on both end are being wasted.