On second look at TFA, I note that the survey was conducted by LexisNexis, who makes library software. There's a bit of a bias there, but there's also the implication that these folks know how users handle properly-organized information.
Too much information? Get a better tool to handle it.
Not in digital formats? Hire data-entry folks at minimum wage.
Can't find the information you want in the sea of other information? Hire a librarian!
Librarians don't just deal with books anymore. They're highly-trained specialists in the field of information organization and retrieval. Conveniently, thanks to budget cuts and changing usage, there are a LOT of librarians looking for jobs right now, and they'll take relatively-cheap salaries, too. Large companies can't afford not to have a librarian.
Right. The players will hit the ball, then watch carefully and verify its path, do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculus to verify the fielders' maximum speeds, apply their doctorate-level psychology knowledge to anticipate the fielders' actions, then once they know it's a double, they'll start running a longer path that's faster if their bodies work according to various assumptions.
Or, they'll just run, and figure out what's best as they go.
Google Ireland Holdings is incorporated in Ireland. Why should America get to tax its earnings, even if they're made by vastly overcharging for some trivial service?
If I were to pay a German relative $30,000 to water a plant, and he paid German taxes on that money, I wouldn't end up with a prison sentence. I'd just end up with an expensive plant. Now, two years from now I might provide the same service to my relative, and work "hard" to earn that money. Then I get to pay American taxes.
If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already.
And indeed, baseball players typically do this: They run straight along the baseline at the beginning and then, if they think they’ve hit a double or more, they bow out to make a “banana curve.... Carozza noticed that even when the ball heads straight for a pocket between fielders, making a double almost certain, runners almost never curve out right away.
The researcher seems to expect ball players to gamble with every such run, betting their play on what the researcher thinks is "almost certain". That means that, while trying to hit the ball, the player must know the tactics and maximum speeds of all the opponent fielders. I don't think that's going to happen.
Not quite. The Spoof has an article with fake quotes talking about the crocodile attempting to pilot the plane. It was published on October 22nd, 2010.
Othersources include more details, and appear to be legitimate. Some predate the Spoof article.
It's not the incident that The Spoof fictionalized. It's just the details.
Yep. It's a math trick at this point. What's interesting is that even having a mass term in the equations implies that we COULD create mass, if we supply the proper conditions (like adding lots of energy at one end of the tube).
Or at least, that's my guess. TFA is an abstract that I'm barely understanding, and the linked paper is way over my head.
In the grand scheme of things, Google pays taxes on all their income. They just shift income around so that the majority of it falls under the lowest tax rate.
It makes perfect sense: Why should anyone pay American taxes on money sitting in Germany? Shouldn't they pay German taxes on it?
I have some German heritage, so is Germany entitled to my income taxes?
Maybe that's because you didn't specify how the method's being called, or offer suggestions as to how it's supposed to behave. Is it actually a bug in Chrome's implementation of Javascript? Maybe the TeamSite app has some broken browser detection.
Can you supply a unit test that only fails on Chrome? It might be a coincidence (or just copied unspecified behavior) that the other browsers work.
Without more information, it's not clear at all if there's even a bug, let alone where it might be. There are more pressing bugs, with more useful reports. They'll get priority.
And that's the problem. If an unscrupulous hacker finds a 0-day exploit, are they really more likely to give it away for free than to sell it to the highest bidder?
Similarly, even knowing that companies are willing to pay (rather than sue/prosecute/harass/whatever) may lead to more exploration of vulnerabilities, and that means more secure programs overall.
Sure, I'd love to see more hackers meeting the minimum ethical requirements to follow responsible disclosure, but there's still a black market for exploits, and legitimizing it may be the best way to kick the various criminals out of the game.
...And on the other other side, people like me, who know that a certain amount of privacy is actually useful, and a certain amount of personally-identifiable information is perfectly fine to give away without worrying about consequences. It takes some effort to maintain separate sets of public vs. private information, but it's possible to keep them separate.
If only there were some service Google could use to turn city & street names into coordinates...
I agree, having up-to-date information requires the government cooperate, but the increase in public confidence is likely enough to improve that. No politician ever wants to be known as "that guy who approved that disruptive road work on Main Street," so they'll give citizens a chance to work around it.
First, how many times has a gay guy come up to you and told you how much he admires your "incredible hulking body"? Is it more times than you've told a woman how much you admire her body?
What makes one person inherently better than another? Why can one person live their life stress-free, while another must hide who they are?
What sort of belief system requires that you attack peaceful people and derail conversations, just to comment that you hate your fellow man?
Where does the Bible actually contain the quote "Thou shalt NOT be gay"? How can such a statement be a quote, when the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek? How many times has the word "gay" changed meaning over just the past few centuries?
By what stretch of the imagination does your desire to "keep them away" not fall into the category of homophobic?
Why should any citizen who appreciates the freedoms of American society not be allowed to serve that society to the maximum extent possible?
In my hometown, we also had emergency updates sent out by the police, which could be picked up by anyone with a scanner (which included a local radio station).
Trading deadly side-impact collisions for rear-end collisions sounds pretty good to me.
Since you're not reading what I'm saying, perhaps you'd like to see the statistics yourself. The fatality rates for side and frontal impacts are in the second paragraph. Note that frontal impacts are now safer than side impacts.
When idiots drive poorly, crashes happen. Since outright killing off the idiots isn't a valid option, we can at least try to stop them from causing unnecessary harm.
Do you actually have any sources for your statements regarding shortening yellow lights for profit? How about statements from the people who actually make/approve the changes? Or is this just more propaganda from the aforementioned "I want to speed wherever I go" set?
The increase is in the number of rear-end collisions, which are caused by drivers following too closely and not seeing that the driver in front is stopping. Trading deadly side-impact collisions for rear-end collisions sounds pretty good to me. In most jurisdictions I've studied, that also means the rear driver in the collision will get the ticket by default, for failing to maintain a safe following distance. The person driving improperly gets punished, and that sounds pretty good to me as well.
Since no jurisdictions have reduced the yellow light time to unreasonably short lengths as you suggest, it seems they're not actually trying to use it for revenue.
Were they obscuring speed limit signs? Did they stop painting the big white "stop here on red" lines on the pavement? Did they do anything to trick drivers into entering an intersection specifically to get a ticket?
Or maybe, just maybe, the folks on the council realized that enforcement increases safety and happens to bring in money, too. Maybe, if they were competent, they realized that it'd be better to spend money on a few dozen cameras and a couple of officers reviewing the pictures, rather than on dozens of officers, cars, equipment, insurance, and gas to get the same level of enforcement.
Better enforcement and lower costs. It sounds good to me.
P.S.: I do not consider shortening yellow lights to be a scam. Routinely running yellow lights means you're doing it wrong (see comment #199322).
Of course! That's why OxyContin, Vicodin, morphine, and countless other prescription drugs can be abused with no problems! After all, nobody's ever stolen anything, or damaged property, or killed anyone to get those, right?
Illegal drugs are illegal because they're usually addictive, and lead to users doing anything to get more. Try walking through Chicago's south side and counting the druggies offering (or threatening) anything to get more of their toxin of choice. If tobacco were discovered today, knowing what we know now, it'd most likely be banned as well.
Maybe if drugs were legal, then the users could still have good jobs, and wouldn't turn to crime. It's a great theory, until you try actually working with a habitual drug user. I've done it, and my coworkers' mental states have usually brought record-low productivity.
I'm currently working in the medical field. One amazing thing I've learned is that there has been research into medicine for thousands of years. Things like glaucoma, cancer, and loss of appetite have been studied for far more than 50 years, and - now here's the amazing part - are treatable already! There are well-defined methods for helping a patient eat, and there are refined treatments for lowering eye pressure! Even more amazing is that these medications have very rare side effects, and don't result in memory loss, lung irritation, loss of coordination, or even low blood pressure. Marijuana may have its medical uses, but they're less effective and carry more side effects than current treatments, so they aren't practically useful for treatment. Thus, marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use", and belong on the Schedule I list.
Facts don't change. Situations change and the set of known information changes. If a use were found where marijuana was actually the best or only option, I'd certainly change my opinion to be a bit more supportive of that limited use. Until that day, I'll think back to all the crap I've had to go through to compensate for drugs' effects, and I'll continue to think that drugs are bad, mmmk?
Never mind that the system Google is using specifically avoids that by having a human map out details first, and that all real construction and limit changes are announced well in advance of their actual start date.
There's also the research into networked vehicles, that will broadcast information on speed limits as soon as they're posted. This includes work on localized authoritative beacons for construction crews.
By the time your plan would work, it won't work. Sorry.
So what? I would have learned one very important detail: They looked at me.
There are four possible scenarios here:
I'm doing something wrong, and the government thinks I am. I can expect to be arrested soon.
I'm doing something wrong, but the government doesn't think I am.
I'm doing nothing wrong, but the government thinks I am. I can expect to be arrested or flagged on any of various lists.
I'm doing nothing wrong, and the government thinks I'm fine. I can go about my life as normal.
Since the government is now aware of my actions, I can assume that they are fully aware of my actions, or at least will continue until they have reasonable confidence in their information.
The FBI actively investigating means options 2 and 3 are very unlikely, since they require the government having incorrect information.
The options that are left are 1 and 4, which effectively boil down to "justice is served". This is better than not knowing what the FBI was doing, where option 3 (a blatant injustice) would still be open.
Maybe the first call should be the FBI, offering authorization to look into anything else they want, just to make sure there's no other mistakes. That would reduce the chance of option 3 even further.
Slashdot Mirror
On second look at TFA, I note that the survey was conducted by LexisNexis, who makes library software. There's a bit of a bias there, but there's also the implication that these folks know how users handle properly-organized information.
Too much information? Get a better tool to handle it.
Not in digital formats? Hire data-entry folks at minimum wage.
Can't find the information you want in the sea of other information? Hire a librarian!
Librarians don't just deal with books anymore. They're highly-trained specialists in the field of information organization and retrieval. Conveniently, thanks to budget cuts and changing usage, there are a LOT of librarians looking for jobs right now, and they'll take relatively-cheap salaries, too. Large companies can't afford not to have a librarian.
Agreed. I like knowing what's going on, but marketing-spun interviews are a waste of my time.
Like ants with wings!
Of course, the ant solution still isn't very fast, or reliable, and is usually far slower than algorithmic solutions. Nice try, though.
when they know they've hit doubles
Right. The players will hit the ball, then watch carefully and verify its path, do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculus to verify the fielders' maximum speeds, apply their doctorate-level psychology knowledge to anticipate the fielders' actions, then once they know it's a double, they'll start running a longer path that's faster if their bodies work according to various assumptions.
Or, they'll just run, and figure out what's best as they go.
It's baseball. It's not rocket science.
Google Ireland Holdings is incorporated in Ireland. Why should America get to tax its earnings, even if they're made by vastly overcharging for some trivial service?
If I were to pay a German relative $30,000 to water a plant, and he paid German taxes on that money, I wouldn't end up with a prison sentence. I'd just end up with an expensive plant. Now, two years from now I might provide the same service to my relative, and work "hard" to earn that money. Then I get to pay American taxes.
If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already.
And indeed, baseball players typically do this: They run straight along the baseline at the beginning and then, if they think they’ve hit a double or more, they bow out to make a “banana curve. ... Carozza noticed that even when the ball heads straight for a pocket between fielders, making a double almost certain, runners almost never curve out right away.
The researcher seems to expect ball players to gamble with every such run, betting their play on what the researcher thinks is "almost certain". That means that, while trying to hit the ball, the player must know the tactics and maximum speeds of all the opponent fielders. I don't think that's going to happen.
Not quite. The Spoof has an article with fake quotes talking about the crocodile attempting to pilot the plane. It was published on October 22nd, 2010.
Other sources include more details, and appear to be legitimate. Some predate the Spoof article.
It's not the incident that The Spoof fictionalized. It's just the details.
Yep. It's a math trick at this point. What's interesting is that even having a mass term in the equations implies that we COULD create mass, if we supply the proper conditions (like adding lots of energy at one end of the tube).
Or at least, that's my guess. TFA is an abstract that I'm barely understanding, and the linked paper is way over my head.
In the grand scheme of things, Google pays taxes on all their income. They just shift income around so that the majority of it falls under the lowest tax rate.
It makes perfect sense: Why should anyone pay American taxes on money sitting in Germany? Shouldn't they pay German taxes on it?
I have some German heritage, so is Germany entitled to my income taxes?
Maybe that's because you didn't specify how the method's being called, or offer suggestions as to how it's supposed to behave. Is it actually a bug in Chrome's implementation of Javascript? Maybe the TeamSite app has some broken browser detection.
Can you supply a unit test that only fails on Chrome? It might be a coincidence (or just copied unspecified behavior) that the other browsers work.
Without more information, it's not clear at all if there's even a bug, let alone where it might be. There are more pressing bugs, with more useful reports. They'll get priority.
You can wash with salt water, at least enough to survive.
And that's the problem. If an unscrupulous hacker finds a 0-day exploit, are they really more likely to give it away for free than to sell it to the highest bidder?
Similarly, even knowing that companies are willing to pay (rather than sue/prosecute/harass/whatever) may lead to more exploration of vulnerabilities, and that means more secure programs overall.
Sure, I'd love to see more hackers meeting the minimum ethical requirements to follow responsible disclosure, but there's still a black market for exploits, and legitimizing it may be the best way to kick the various criminals out of the game.
...And on the other other side, people like me, who know that a certain amount of privacy is actually useful, and a certain amount of personally-identifiable information is perfectly fine to give away without worrying about consequences. It takes some effort to maintain separate sets of public vs. private information, but it's possible to keep them separate.
If only there were some service Google could use to turn city & street names into coordinates...
I agree, having up-to-date information requires the government cooperate, but the increase in public confidence is likely enough to improve that. No politician ever wants to be known as "that guy who approved that disruptive road work on Main Street," so they'll give citizens a chance to work around it.
You raise some interesting questions...
First, how many times has a gay guy come up to you and told you how much he admires your "incredible hulking body"? Is it more times than you've told a woman how much you admire her body?
What makes one person inherently better than another? Why can one person live their life stress-free, while another must hide who they are?
What sort of belief system requires that you attack peaceful people and derail conversations, just to comment that you hate your fellow man?
Where does the Bible actually contain the quote "Thou shalt NOT be gay"? How can such a statement be a quote, when the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek? How many times has the word "gay" changed meaning over just the past few centuries?
By what stretch of the imagination does your desire to "keep them away" not fall into the category of homophobic?
Why should any citizen who appreciates the freedoms of American society not be allowed to serve that society to the maximum extent possible?
Finally, why is there so little punctuation?
The announcement varies by locality, but a decent starting point is http://www.highwayconditions.com/.
In my hometown, we also had emergency updates sent out by the police, which could be picked up by anyone with a scanner (which included a local radio station).
Trading deadly side-impact collisions for rear-end collisions sounds pretty good to me.
Since you're not reading what I'm saying, perhaps you'd like to see the statistics yourself. The fatality rates for side and frontal impacts are in the second paragraph. Note that frontal impacts are now safer than side impacts.
When idiots drive poorly, crashes happen. Since outright killing off the idiots isn't a valid option, we can at least try to stop them from causing unnecessary harm.
Do you actually have any sources for your statements regarding shortening yellow lights for profit? How about statements from the people who actually make/approve the changes? Or is this just more propaganda from the aforementioned "I want to speed wherever I go" set?
In fact, that's exactly what TFA says.
The increase is in the number of rear-end collisions, which are caused by drivers following too closely and not seeing that the driver in front is stopping. Trading deadly side-impact collisions for rear-end collisions sounds pretty good to me. In most jurisdictions I've studied, that also means the rear driver in the collision will get the ticket by default, for failing to maintain a safe following distance. The person driving improperly gets punished, and that sounds pretty good to me as well.
Since no jurisdictions have reduced the yellow light time to unreasonably short lengths as you suggest, it seems they're not actually trying to use it for revenue.
I'm a software engineer. That's my normal life.
Were they obscuring speed limit signs? Did they stop painting the big white "stop here on red" lines on the pavement? Did they do anything to trick drivers into entering an intersection specifically to get a ticket?
Or maybe, just maybe, the folks on the council realized that enforcement increases safety and happens to bring in money, too. Maybe, if they were competent, they realized that it'd be better to spend money on a few dozen cameras and a couple of officers reviewing the pictures, rather than on dozens of officers, cars, equipment, insurance, and gas to get the same level of enforcement.
Better enforcement and lower costs. It sounds good to me.
P.S.: I do not consider shortening yellow lights to be a scam. Routinely running yellow lights means you're doing it wrong (see comment #199322).
Of course! That's why OxyContin, Vicodin, morphine, and countless other prescription drugs can be abused with no problems! After all, nobody's ever stolen anything, or damaged property, or killed anyone to get those, right?
Illegal drugs are illegal because they're usually addictive, and lead to users doing anything to get more. Try walking through Chicago's south side and counting the druggies offering (or threatening) anything to get more of their toxin of choice. If tobacco were discovered today, knowing what we know now, it'd most likely be banned as well.
Maybe if drugs were legal, then the users could still have good jobs, and wouldn't turn to crime. It's a great theory, until you try actually working with a habitual drug user. I've done it, and my coworkers' mental states have usually brought record-low productivity.
I'm currently working in the medical field. One amazing thing I've learned is that there has been research into medicine for thousands of years. Things like glaucoma, cancer, and loss of appetite have been studied for far more than 50 years, and - now here's the amazing part - are treatable already! There are well-defined methods for helping a patient eat, and there are refined treatments for lowering eye pressure! Even more amazing is that these medications have very rare side effects, and don't result in memory loss, lung irritation, loss of coordination, or even low blood pressure. Marijuana may have its medical uses, but they're less effective and carry more side effects than current treatments, so they aren't practically useful for treatment. Thus, marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use", and belong on the Schedule I list.
Facts don't change. Situations change and the set of known information changes. If a use were found where marijuana was actually the best or only option, I'd certainly change my opinion to be a bit more supportive of that limited use. Until that day, I'll think back to all the crap I've had to go through to compensate for drugs' effects, and I'll continue to think that drugs are bad, mmmk?
Never mind that the system Google is using specifically avoids that by having a human map out details first, and that all real construction and limit changes are announced well in advance of their actual start date.
There's also the research into networked vehicles, that will broadcast information on speed limits as soon as they're posted. This includes work on localized authoritative beacons for construction crews.
By the time your plan would work, it won't work. Sorry.
So what? I would have learned one very important detail: They looked at me.
There are four possible scenarios here:
Since the government is now aware of my actions, I can assume that they are fully aware of my actions, or at least will continue until they have reasonable confidence in their information.
The FBI actively investigating means options 2 and 3 are very unlikely, since they require the government having incorrect information.
The options that are left are 1 and 4, which effectively boil down to "justice is served". This is better than not knowing what the FBI was doing, where option 3 (a blatant injustice) would still be open.
Maybe the first call should be the FBI, offering authorization to look into anything else they want, just to make sure there's no other mistakes. That would reduce the chance of option 3 even further.