Tariffs are literally a tax on doing business in america. What's a company going to do, pay a 30% tax on supplies needed to produce their product for sale all over the world, or move manufacturing to mexico or canada where they don't have to pay the tax. The tariff makes it uneconomical to do manufacturing in the US for things made for export, as in, things that bring money into the country. US based companies just don't have the economy of scale that companies that sell worldwide have and spinning up factories to only cater to the US market is rarely cost effective. So all that happens is we end up paying a tax to the government and things still get imported. This happened with the steel tariffs bush imposed. It was the push needed to move many factories offshore. Tariffs are a bad, bad tax.
Your personal information is being shared by your creditors/bank with equifax. That is the only way they collect information.
Write your creditors and say you no longer consent to your information being sent to equifax due to their ongoing security issues. There are two other reporting agencies they can use, tell them you only want information shared with experian and transunion until further notice. Even if they say no, say you will hold them legally responsible for information shared with equifax after equifax has been shown to be an immediate and clear security risk.
It is pretty much the only way to hurt equifax. Gets companies to stop using them. Convince companies that no matter how strong their own privacy policies are, they don't work if they are not transitive to everyone they share your information with.
Heck, make this idea popular enough that credit card companies start listing "wont share your information with equifax." as a selling point and it will hurt them bad and make everyone take security more seriously.
Of all the physical posessions I have the three top things I spend the majority of my time interacting with are:
1. my bed 2. my laptop 3. my smartphone
It's the third most important thing I can buy from a quality of life standpoint when it comes to raw hours. I don't want to spend hours a day annoyed by my phone. A couple hundred bucks as a one time fee. (less if deprecation and re-sell is taken into account) is completely worth it for even a slightly better experience.
It doesn't take funding to send a copyright infringement letter and his case is pretty clear cut. He just doesn't want his character being appropriated by those groups. He has already said as much several times. No need for a conspiracy.
No. If you are in the intersection box when the light turns red, you have just committed a moving violation and can (and should be) ticketed for it. Despite popular belief, you are not supposed to enter the intersection unless you can proceed through it before the light turns red. DMV driving testers will fail drivers that drive that way.
No, you are definitely supposed to enter the intersection when making a left then turn on yellow or red. You will get dinged on your driving test if you do not do so. At least in California, maybe it varies by state. But that is how you are supposed to do it here.
To quote a CHP officer
"If a person is driving straight through an intersection (NOT TURNING) law requires a motorist to enter the intersection, only when there is enough room to completely traverse the intersection. For drivers making a left turn, this rule does not apply! If a driver faces a green light, they are authorized to enter the intersection and wait for clearance to complete their turn. HOWEVER, the driver is not allowed to enter the intersection for a left turn if they are facing a yellow light."
If "organic" means no-pesticides, then I'm all for it, where I can afford it. "Natural" on the package doesn't mean anything useful and it probably will always be a junk marketing term. I use "natural" to mean anything that you could find while wandering around on the planet. Of course, then, arsenic is natural, so that isn't a good enough criteria by itself.
Except organic does _not_ mean no pesticides, it means they are using decades old formulations of pesticides that were pretty arbitrarily certified organic with little research, rhyme or reason. They require a lot more chemicals to be effective than modern, better researched and more effective pesticides. If you are eating organic to avoid pesticides, you are doing it wrong. They often have more pesticides than normal food since they are restricted to less effective pesticides and are going to be worse for you than modern equivalents that were designed to be safe.
That discretion is based on quality of evidence. If the evidence is clear, there is no choice. Its not the movies.
Completely, utterly not true. The DA has fully discretion on what to prosecute. And political reasons are a huge part of deciding whether to do so or not. [1]
Not only does the DA have the freedom to not prosecute, a jury can declare someone not guilty they know is guilty if they believe the law itself or the punishment that will happen if declared guilty is unjust. [2]
Except the advertiser does not pay when people skip.
So it is in the advertisers best interest to have you skip if you are actually not interested in the ad, if they made a nice quiet ad, people might let it run without realizing it even if they are not interested and the advertiser is out money.
If an insurance company can perform a relatively inexpensive gene therapy and even slightly reduce the chance of a hugely expensive heart bypass, hip replacement, or long term care later they would jump on it in a minute. They may even waive the copay if it is that effective. Many insurance companies do this for drugs that help later in life like statins now as is to encourage people to take them before they have to pay out a huge bill later.
As to relatively inexpensive, She underwent a fairly normal gene therapy that just has not been done on humans before, to quote the article it is something a student could whip up in a few days in a lab and nothing that out of the ordinary.
"Maxwell’s radiation-hardened, hybrid, Nuclear Event Detectors (NED) sense ionizing radiation pulses generated by a nuclear event, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon, and rapidly switches its output from the normal high state to a low state with a propagation delay time of less than 20ns."
I know it makes articles sound more dramatic and controversial, but sometimes the answer is obvious:
"So, does DoCoMo need to invest more in its infrastructure, or is Android a data hog that needs reigning in?"
The answer is clearly "both". Apps and android should optimize their data usage, doing so increases battery life and gives a better user experience all around. If DoCoMo is identifying particularly troublesome apps, then that is helpful to decide where to start hacking. _Also_, DoCoMo should be upgrading its infrastructure. It is clear that data use will only rise, and they certainly would like to have more customers, apps reducing their usage is a good thing, and will create a better experience, but not a solution to the problem that people actually have uses for all that data, and said usage will grow.
However they can tell by the serial number whether that iPad is fresh from the factory or restocked after a return.
It would be odd if 10 iPads shipped in different shipments, some used and returned without the customer before claiming it was made of clay all happend to be returned for being made of clay at once.
The human brain is absurdly faster/more powerful than even the largest computers today. Admittedly, we are getting closer to the point where the two will meet, but it is still decades away by most estimates.
Any shareholders who have the same belief can just sell their shares to the same effect. No need for particular action. They will get a much better deal than they would in a liquidation too.
Determining whether two boolean circuits are equivalent is a famously difficult problem to solve. In fact, it can be reduced to SAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem) which was the very first algorithm that was shown to be NP-complete, which in general means it is impractical to solve on real computers.
Not really. Your lifting power can never be more than the weight of air it displaces and hydrogen is already a whole lot less dense than air. If you do the math a complete vacuum will only lift about 7% more than hydrogen. Even then I don't think there is any technology that will give us light containers that can withstand vacuum pressures of any usable size.
The power supply may be perfectly happy putting out 20A but the wires leading to the outlet will have a maximum amperage before the melt. You can't tell that from a voltage drop.
No, from the outside it will look like the cube just falls in, depending on the size of the black hole and the angle of approach, we may see it undergo spagettification first.
However, you can use a black hole for data retention as a delay line. There is a distance above the black hole that is called the "photon sphere" which is the point that the orbital speed exactly equals the speed of light, meaning that photons injected at the proper angle will actually be in orbit around the black hole.
So, you can use a laser beam to spit out your data on an almost but not quite orbital path, sending the data around and picking it up after it orbits, picking out what you want and re-transmitting everything else. The latency would be high, but the storage space would be incredible. Imagine you set the angle so the light orbits enough time to travel a light week before you capture it again, todays optical interconnects work at 100Gb/s, a week is roughly 600 megaseconds so you get 60 petabytes of storage more or less, per frequency you use, and not to mention you can send data in both directions, and have delay lines longer than a light week. You could have a whole storage hierarchy with delay lines of a few light seconds to centuries around the same black hole to balance latency/storage space.
Yeah, I figured it was probably sarcasm, but it actually isn't that far off from the anti-science or just plain science-ignorant positions that some very vocal people tend to take. (oh sci.physics.relativity, I mourne for you.). So I figured on the off chance that I can make at least one anti-science individual reconsider their views, it was worth replying too.
Trust me, I am much happier that you were posting than sarcastically than if you were a kook who actually believed it and wanted to argue.:)
I probably deserve a "Whoosh!" for this but I'll bite anyway.
Such a scheme would fail at the reproducibility part of the review process. You have to describe your process in the paper such that someone else can reproduce your results, if they build a correct machine that isn't mis-calibrated and then get a different result, it will then call your paper into question. Pull these shenanigans enough and people will stop publishing you and take a long, hard look at whatever university gave you your degree. Universities are very motivated to weed out the bad seeds, sometimes someone slips through the cracks.
Of course, you may still have a valid paper if your machine was mis-calibrated and failed in a new way that no one expected before and the value of dissimating that information so others learn from your mistake is worth it.
> The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.
That is exactly what they were doing. Testing the hypothesis that the standard model accurately describes nature. They found it didn't, hence the need to explore it and come up with new hypothesis's to test.
1) You start out observing something the current theory can't explain. 2) Come up with a new theory that accurately predicts all experimental results so far, the newly observed effect, and that also predicts something new that has not been tested yet. 3) Test the new thing that the new theory predicted. If you do observe the new effect, it lends credence to the theory.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
They are claiming to be on step one, with an inkling of step 2 being worked on. not step 3 to which your specific criticism would apply.
On a tangent, the most commonly overlooked part of the process among cranks is the consistency part of step 2, namely that your new theory must accurately predict everything that has already been observed. I don't think it is a simple oversight, there is some metal block among cranks that keeps them from appreciating it, hence the propensity to claim they can prove Einstein wrong. Which of course doesn't make sense, he was already proven right. That doesn't mean that relativity is the final answer, it just means that it successfully predicted observed effects that the old theories didn't, and was consistent with all observed data about the world so far. (Well it breaks down at the quantum level, but so did newtons laws, so it was still a strictly better theory in that it predicted more things correctly, but still not everything)
Slashdot Mirror
Tariffs are literally a tax on doing business in america. What's a company going to do, pay a 30% tax on supplies needed to produce their product for sale all over the world, or move manufacturing to mexico or canada where they don't have to pay the tax. The tariff makes it uneconomical to do manufacturing in the US for things made for export, as in, things that bring money into the country. US based companies just don't have the economy of scale that companies that sell worldwide have and spinning up factories to only cater to the US market is rarely cost effective. So all that happens is we end up paying a tax to the government and things still get imported. This happened with the steel tariffs bush imposed. It was the push needed to move many factories offshore. Tariffs are a bad, bad tax.
Your personal information is being shared by your creditors/bank with equifax. That is the only way they collect information.
Write your creditors and say you no longer consent to your information being sent to equifax due to their ongoing security issues. There are two other reporting agencies they can use, tell them you only want information shared with experian and transunion until further notice. Even if they say no, say you will hold them legally responsible for information shared with equifax after equifax has been shown to be an immediate and clear security risk.
It is pretty much the only way to hurt equifax. Gets companies to stop using them. Convince companies that no matter how strong their own privacy policies are, they don't work if they are not transitive to everyone they share your information with.
Heck, make this idea popular enough that credit card companies start listing "wont share your information with equifax." as a selling point and it will hurt them bad and make everyone take security more seriously.
Of all the physical posessions I have the three top things I spend the majority of my time interacting with are:
1. my bed
2. my laptop
3. my smartphone
It's the third most important thing I can buy from a quality of life standpoint when it comes to raw hours. I don't want to spend hours a day annoyed by my phone. A couple hundred bucks as a one time fee. (less if deprecation and re-sell is taken into account) is completely worth it for even a slightly better experience.
It doesn't take funding to send a copyright infringement letter and his case is pretty clear cut. He just doesn't want his character being appropriated by those groups. He has already said as much several times. No need for a conspiracy.
Again, that is trademark. Copyright has no such requirement.
No. If you are in the intersection box when the light turns red, you have just committed a moving violation and can (and should be) ticketed for it. Despite popular belief, you are not supposed to enter the intersection unless you can proceed through it before the light turns red. DMV driving testers will fail drivers that drive that way.
No, you are definitely supposed to enter the intersection when making a left then turn on yellow or red. You will get dinged on your driving test if you do not do so. At least in California, maybe it varies by state. But that is how you are supposed to do it here.
To quote a CHP officer
"If a person is driving straight through an intersection (NOT TURNING) law requires a motorist to enter the intersection, only when there is enough room to completely traverse the intersection. For drivers making a left turn, this rule does not apply! If a driver faces a green light, they are authorized to enter the intersection and wait for clearance to complete their turn. HOWEVER, the driver is not allowed to enter the intersection for a left turn if they are facing a yellow light."
This has nothing to do with trading or algorithms.
This was a mistake made by their system that handled shareholder votes about corporate buyouts interacting with a lawsuit.
If "organic" means no-pesticides, then I'm all for it, where I can afford it. "Natural" on the package doesn't mean anything useful and it probably will always be a junk marketing term. I use "natural" to mean anything that you could find while wandering around on the planet. Of course, then, arsenic is natural, so that isn't a good enough criteria by itself.
Except organic does _not_ mean no pesticides, it means they are using decades old formulations of pesticides that were pretty arbitrarily certified organic with little research, rhyme or reason. They require a lot more chemicals to be effective than modern, better researched and more effective pesticides. If you are eating organic to avoid pesticides, you are doing it wrong. They often have more pesticides than normal food since they are restricted to less effective pesticides and are going to be worse for you than modern equivalents that were designed to be safe.
some good info with hard examples of how much more pesticide is needed for organic farming.
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
That discretion is based on quality of evidence. If the evidence is clear, there is no choice. Its not the movies.
Completely, utterly not true. The DA has fully discretion on what to prosecute. And political reasons are a huge part of deciding whether to do so or not. [1]
Not only does the DA have the freedom to not prosecute, a jury can declare someone not guilty they know is guilty if they believe the law itself or the punishment that will happen if declared guilty is unjust. [2]
[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Except the advertiser does not pay when people skip.
So it is in the advertisers best interest to have you skip if you are actually not interested in the ad, if they made a nice quiet ad, people might let it run without realizing it even if they are not interested and the advertiser is out money.
Absolutely,
If an insurance company can perform a relatively inexpensive gene therapy and even slightly reduce the chance of a hugely expensive heart bypass, hip replacement, or long term care later they would jump on it in a minute. They may even waive the copay if it is that effective. Many insurance companies do this for drugs that help later in life like statins now as is to encourage people to take them before they have to pay out a huge bill later.
As to relatively inexpensive, She underwent a fairly normal gene therapy that just has not been done on humans before, to quote the article it is something a student could whip up in a few days in a lab and nothing that out of the ordinary.
Just stick one of these in a box with an LED. if the LED is on, it's doomsday.
http://www.maxwell.com/product...
"Maxwell’s radiation-hardened, hybrid, Nuclear Event Detectors (NED) sense ionizing radiation pulses generated by a nuclear event, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon, and rapidly switches its output from the normal high state to a low state with a propagation delay time of less than 20ns."
I know it makes articles sound more dramatic and controversial, but sometimes the answer is obvious:
"So, does DoCoMo need to invest more in its infrastructure, or is Android a data hog that needs reigning in?"
The answer is clearly "both". Apps and android should optimize their data usage, doing so increases battery life and gives a better user experience all around. If DoCoMo is identifying particularly troublesome apps, then that is helpful to decide where to start hacking. _Also_, DoCoMo should be upgrading its infrastructure. It is clear that data use will only rise, and they certainly would like to have more customers, apps reducing their usage is a good thing, and will create a better experience, but not a solution to the problem that people actually have uses for all that data, and said usage will grow.
However they can tell by the serial number whether that iPad is fresh from the factory or restocked after a return.
It would be odd if 10 iPads shipped in different shipments, some used and returned without the customer before claiming it was made of clay all happend to be returned for being made of clay at once.
The human brain is absurdly faster/more powerful than even the largest computers today. Admittedly, we are getting closer to the point where the two will meet, but it is still decades away by most estimates.
You can turn on/off whether you appear in searches in the privacy settings.
Any shareholders who have the same belief can just sell their shares to the same effect. No need for particular action. They will get a much better deal than they would in a liquidation too.
Determining whether two boolean circuits are equivalent is a famously difficult problem to solve. In fact, it can be reduced to SAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem) which was the very first algorithm that was shown to be NP-complete, which in general means it is impractical to solve on real computers.
What does the atomic weight have to do with anything?
my gram of gold still weight much less than a pound of boron.
A cubic meter of oxygen weights a lot less than a cubic meter of lithium.
What matters is the energy density they can achieve, which has nothing to do with atomic weight.
Not really. Your lifting power can never be more than the weight of air it displaces and hydrogen is already a whole lot less dense than air. If you do the math a complete vacuum will only lift about 7% more than hydrogen. Even then I don't think there is any technology that will give us light containers that can withstand vacuum pressures of any usable size.
The power supply may be perfectly happy putting out 20A but the wires leading to the outlet will have a maximum amperage before the melt. You can't tell that from a voltage drop.
No, from the outside it will look like the cube just falls in, depending on the size of the black hole and the angle of approach, we may see it undergo spagettification first.
However, you can use a black hole for data retention as a delay line. There is a distance above the black hole that is called the "photon sphere" which is the point that the orbital speed exactly equals the speed of light, meaning that photons injected at the proper angle will actually be in orbit around the black hole.
So, you can use a laser beam to spit out your data on an almost but not quite orbital path, sending the data around and picking it up after it orbits, picking out what you want and re-transmitting everything else. The latency would be high, but the storage space would be incredible. Imagine you set the angle so the light orbits enough time to travel a light week before you capture it again, todays optical interconnects work at 100Gb/s, a week is roughly 600 megaseconds so you get 60 petabytes of storage more or less, per frequency you use, and not to mention you can send data in both directions, and have delay lines longer than a light week. You could have a whole storage hierarchy with delay lines of a few light seconds to centuries around the same black hole to balance latency/storage space.
Yeah, I figured it was probably sarcasm, but it actually isn't that far off from the anti-science or just plain science-ignorant positions that some very vocal people tend to take. (oh sci.physics.relativity, I mourne for you.). So I figured on the off chance that I can make at least one anti-science individual reconsider their views, it was worth replying too.
Trust me, I am much happier that you were posting than sarcastically than if you were a kook who actually believed it and wanted to argue. :)
I probably deserve a "Whoosh!" for this but I'll bite anyway.
Such a scheme would fail at the reproducibility part of the review process. You have to describe your process in the paper such that someone else can reproduce your results, if they build a correct machine that isn't mis-calibrated and then get a different result, it will then call your paper into question. Pull these shenanigans enough and people will stop publishing you and take a long, hard look at whatever university gave you your degree. Universities are very motivated to weed out the bad seeds, sometimes someone slips through the cracks.
Of course, you may still have a valid paper if your machine was mis-calibrated and failed in a new way that no one expected before and the value of dissimating that information so others learn from your mistake is worth it.
> The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.
That is exactly what they were doing. Testing the hypothesis that the standard model accurately describes nature. They found it didn't, hence the need to explore it and come up with new hypothesis's to test.
1) You start out observing something the current theory can't explain.
2) Come up with a new theory that accurately predicts all experimental results so far, the newly observed effect, and that also predicts something new that has not been tested yet.
3) Test the new thing that the new theory predicted. If you do observe the new effect, it lends credence to the theory.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
They are claiming to be on step one, with an inkling of step 2 being worked on. not step 3 to which your specific criticism would apply.
On a tangent, the most commonly overlooked part of the process among cranks is the consistency part of step 2, namely that your new theory must accurately predict everything that has already been observed. I don't think it is a simple oversight, there is some metal block among cranks that keeps them from appreciating it, hence the propensity to claim they can prove Einstein wrong. Which of course doesn't make sense, he was already proven right. That doesn't mean that relativity is the final answer, it just means that it successfully predicted observed effects that the old theories didn't, and was consistent with all observed data about the world so far. (Well it breaks down at the quantum level, but so did newtons laws, so it was still a strictly better theory in that it predicted more things correctly, but still not everything)