A risk table is basically an educated guess as to what a particular customer will end up costing the company.
Pretty much any easily measured correlation is perfectly valid for a risk table. And the fact is, they work. It doesn't matter one bit why young drivers get in more accidents, the fact is young drivers get in more accidents. No need to find the cause, just charge young drivers more.
Same with browsers. It doesn't matter why FireFox users get in more accidents (it almost certainly has absolutely nothing to do with FireFox). The fact is, they get in more accidents, and are therefore a higher risk. It's a marker, and apparently a statistically significant one.
I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder against users of the phrase or why you consider it useless noise.
I do.
It's because people use it without having any idea what it actually means.
Case in point, the first post on this thread.
The post is technically correct: Correlation does not imply causation. However, it completely ignores the fact that insurance companies could care less about causation. They aren't out to prove that using FireFox makes people get in more accidents. That is obviously not the cause of the correlation. All they care about is the fact that people who use FireFox get in more accidents than people who don't. That is absolutely true (supposedly), and it is all that is necessary to set up a risk table, upon which insurance rates are based.
Insurance companies also take your driving record into account. You may meet all the risk factors available (drive a red sports car, under 25, not married, yadda yadda), but if you've never had so much as a traffic ticket since you got your learner's permit when you were 14 you are going to have a pretty low rate. You may hit all the risk factors, but you've shown that you obviously aren't a risk.
People who blindly yell 'Correlation is not causation' should be slapped with a trout.
What do I get?
In any case, I don't see why browser version is any less valid a pattern to use for insurance rate policies than age.
The data says younger drivers get into more accidents. They are therefore higher risk drivers, and thus by default get a higher insurance rate.
The data says Firefox users get into more accidents. They are therefore higher risk drivers, and thus by default get a higher insurance rate.
Now, it could probably be because Firefox users tend to be younger, and younger drivers tend to get in more accidents, and a rough guess for the cause of that correlation would be lack of experience, but that would require in-depth study and is far beyond what is needed to accurately set insurance rates.
So the cause is lack of experience, but the correlation is to age and browser usage. It could well be something completely different for FF, since I would think Chrome would correlate to young drivers also. The point is, knowing the root cause doesn't really matter. All you need to know is that they correlate in order to set up risk tables.
It's not a matter of extraditing him. He's in the US, and he will be working in the US. He is currently visiting all the HP hubs around the country/world - it's completely legitimate business, especially for a new CEO.
They have to serve you in person. They also cannot serve you with a subpoena outside the court's jurisdiction, so until he returns to HP headquarters they are shit out of luck.
They can't serve it to HP because HP is not a person, and is not the person the subpoena is for. So they are stuck until they find him in person and can serve him.
Because the guy is actually working (he's a new CEO, he's going to HP's hubs around the world for what boils down to a meet and greet), and you don't have to accept a subpoena.
However if you accept it (whether you know what it is when you accept it or not), you've got to show up.
Basically, Leo hasn't been served the subpoena yet, and until he is served he is not required to show up in court. HP is not accepting the subpoena for him (since it's not HP that the subpoena is for), so until they manage to track him down and serve him they are stuck. The fact that he knows about the subpoena now makes it very difficult to serve him if he doesn't want to do it.
It's probably your ISP screwing you there. I've only got a 4mbit connection and I can't remember the last time I dropped below the highest quality bitrate.
That or your connection has very high latency. Netflix doesn't seem to be able to handle latency over 500ms very well.
They set themselves up for failure by not expanding their infrastructure to keep pace with their profits.
They've used up all that money, and now it's hard to make the big leaps they need to make to keep up with demand.
Now they've got companies like Google starting to deploy 1gbit internet connections for the same price that everyone else offers their 40mbit connections (or ISP's like mine offer their 4mbit connections, the bastards).
If they don't start doing some major investing they'll be run out of the market by someone who is willing and able to do so. Frankly, that would be awesome.
That's odd, with a 4mbit connection I'm always at "high quality" and I can't tell the difference between it and my DVD's. Their HD content is certainly as good as over the air / cable HD, but I only have a 1080i TV so I can't comment on how it compares to BluRay. I can't imagine it matches up, but I can't imagine it doing all that poorly either.
Seriously, is there a way to stream Netflix under Linux yet (aside from in a VM?)
Why bother? It's only 1% of the market, if that.
Watch it in a VM, or watch it on your Wii, or your Xbox, or your PS3, or your bluray player, or any of the scores of other devices that stream Netflix.
Yes, Netflix works in all browsers, it just doesn't work on Linux. And frankly, most people don't care.
I don't know how their computers decide what to keep where. Some popular things (like Microsoft updates) I think get auto cached, others I think it is based on demand.
It's just a proxy cache. Keep track of what people are requesting, and make sure you have it. The first time someone requests something that isn't in the cache, it gets cached. If something hasn't been requested in a given amount of time, purge it from the cache (this would probably be a sliding scale - the larger the file the longer you keep it).
It's not super complicated, in fact it's very old technology, it just used to be more generalized and ISP initiated than these new setups (Akamai, Netflix) are.
Simply Google now has a backbone which can put most tier 1s to shame and peers with anyone anywhere.
Didn't I just read somewhere that Google is now the largest ISP on the internet? They don't put most tier 1's to shame, they put all of them to shame. They are even planning on installing a 1Gbit connection to somewhere between 50,000 and 500,000 homes in the next few years. Mostly because they think other ISPs are lazy, and this should have been done a while ago. Google is cool like that.
With this kind of traffic, it will probably be cost effective for Netflix to do something similar (become an ISP, not sell Gbit internet, but someday maybe). Oddly enough content producers may end up being our way out of the cable/phone company internet lock-in.
If you prefer turn based over real-time why are you bothering with real-time strategy games?
I honestly don't think turn based could possibly "showcase the strategic aspect". In reality things happen at the same time, and a real strategy must take that into account. How can it be showcase the strategic aspect if it removes most of the real strategy?
I was all set to vote against her until she ended up as the G.O.P. candidate.
If you're going to refer to two women in the same sentence, please do not use pronouns for both. Since you were last talking about Carly Fiorina, the first "her" should be referencing Fiorina. Since that makes no sense in context, you should have simply said "I was all set to vote against Barbara Boxer until Carly Fiorina ended up as the G.O.P. candidate."
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.
The UK government wants the US government to pull this sort of thing off the net.
Google can do what they like, but the US Govt. has rules it must follow in that regard, and they are nothing like the UK's rules (which are more like suggestions for them anyway).
So this thing updates every 2 seconds [with a 100x one in the works]
Holy crap how did you misread that so bad? It's every 2 seconds now, which is more than 100 times quicker than it was two years ago. That's a huge improvement in a short period of time, and it is only going to get better. They need another order of magnitude (10 times) improvement to get it to a reasonable frame-rate of 30fps. Expect that in another year or so.
Also note that this is live video at 0.5fps. They could probably get that order of magnitude improvement if they weren't shooting live.
Re:"Alice" one of the best learning languages toda
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
It's a joke, don't get your panties in a bunch.
Re:Modern Computers do come with BASIC
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
So we should just stick to the fact that we have to pay for it for 3 years before it goes into effect, which will keep it "budget neutral" for a whopping 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it very likely affects the risk tables.
A risk table is basically an educated guess as to what a particular customer will end up costing the company.
Pretty much any easily measured correlation is perfectly valid for a risk table. And the fact is, they work. It doesn't matter one bit why young drivers get in more accidents, the fact is young drivers get in more accidents. No need to find the cause, just charge young drivers more.
Same with browsers. It doesn't matter why FireFox users get in more accidents (it almost certainly has absolutely nothing to do with FireFox). The fact is, they get in more accidents, and are therefore a higher risk. It's a marker, and apparently a statistically significant one.
Ahh Netscape.
Such a great browser... as long as the only thing you had to compare it to was Internet Explorer.
I think belthize rode the short bus to school.
I kid! I kid!
I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder against users of the phrase or why you consider it useless noise.
I do.
It's because people use it without having any idea what it actually means.
Case in point, the first post on this thread.
The post is technically correct: Correlation does not imply causation. However, it completely ignores the fact that insurance companies could care less about causation. They aren't out to prove that using FireFox makes people get in more accidents. That is obviously not the cause of the correlation. All they care about is the fact that people who use FireFox get in more accidents than people who don't. That is absolutely true (supposedly), and it is all that is necessary to set up a risk table, upon which insurance rates are based.
Insurance companies also take your driving record into account. You may meet all the risk factors available (drive a red sports car, under 25, not married, yadda yadda), but if you've never had so much as a traffic ticket since you got your learner's permit when you were 14 you are going to have a pretty low rate. You may hit all the risk factors, but you've shown that you obviously aren't a risk.
People who blindly yell 'Correlation is not causation' should be slapped with a trout.
What do I get?
In any case, I don't see why browser version is any less valid a pattern to use for insurance rate policies than age.
The data says younger drivers get into more accidents. They are therefore higher risk drivers, and thus by default get a higher insurance rate.
The data says Firefox users get into more accidents. They are therefore higher risk drivers, and thus by default get a higher insurance rate.
Now, it could probably be because Firefox users tend to be younger, and younger drivers tend to get in more accidents, and a rough guess for the cause of that correlation would be lack of experience, but that would require in-depth study and is far beyond what is needed to accurately set insurance rates.
So the cause is lack of experience, but the correlation is to age and browser usage. It could well be something completely different for FF, since I would think Chrome would correlate to young drivers also. The point is, knowing the root cause doesn't really matter. All you need to know is that they correlate in order to set up risk tables.
It's not a matter of extraditing him. He's in the US, and he will be working in the US. He is currently visiting all the HP hubs around the country/world - it's completely legitimate business, especially for a new CEO.
They have to serve you in person. They also cannot serve you with a subpoena outside the court's jurisdiction, so until he returns to HP headquarters they are shit out of luck.
They can't serve it to HP because HP is not a person, and is not the person the subpoena is for. So they are stuck until they find him in person and can serve him.
Because the guy is actually working (he's a new CEO, he's going to HP's hubs around the world for what boils down to a meet and greet), and you don't have to accept a subpoena.
However if you accept it (whether you know what it is when you accept it or not), you've got to show up.
Basically, Leo hasn't been served the subpoena yet, and until he is served he is not required to show up in court. HP is not accepting the subpoena for him (since it's not HP that the subpoena is for), so until they manage to track him down and serve him they are stuck. The fact that he knows about the subpoena now makes it very difficult to serve him if he doesn't want to do it.
Figures HP would get someone good after I leave.
Only on the high seas, and possibly while delivering pizza.
It's probably your ISP screwing you there. I've only got a 4mbit connection and I can't remember the last time I dropped below the highest quality bitrate.
That or your connection has very high latency. Netflix doesn't seem to be able to handle latency over 500ms very well.
They set themselves up for failure by not expanding their infrastructure to keep pace with their profits.
They've used up all that money, and now it's hard to make the big leaps they need to make to keep up with demand.
Now they've got companies like Google starting to deploy 1gbit internet connections for the same price that everyone else offers their 40mbit connections (or ISP's like mine offer their 4mbit connections, the bastards).
If they don't start doing some major investing they'll be run out of the market by someone who is willing and able to do so. Frankly, that would be awesome.
That's odd, with a 4mbit connection I'm always at "high quality" and I can't tell the difference between it and my DVD's. Their HD content is certainly as good as over the air / cable HD, but I only have a 1080i TV so I can't comment on how it compares to BluRay. I can't imagine it matches up, but I can't imagine it doing all that poorly either.
Maybe your ISP is throttling Netflix.
Especially when their competition starts laying down 1Gbit connections.
Seriously, is there a way to stream Netflix under Linux yet (aside from in a VM?)
Why bother? It's only 1% of the market, if that.
Watch it in a VM, or watch it on your Wii, or your Xbox, or your PS3, or your bluray player, or any of the scores of other devices that stream Netflix.
Yes, Netflix works in all browsers, it just doesn't work on Linux. And frankly, most people don't care.
I don't know how their computers decide what to keep where. Some popular things (like Microsoft updates) I think get auto cached, others I think it is based on demand.
It's just a proxy cache. Keep track of what people are requesting, and make sure you have it. The first time someone requests something that isn't in the cache, it gets cached. If something hasn't been requested in a given amount of time, purge it from the cache (this would probably be a sliding scale - the larger the file the longer you keep it).
It's not super complicated, in fact it's very old technology, it just used to be more generalized and ISP initiated than these new setups (Akamai, Netflix) are.
Simply Google now has a backbone which can put most tier 1s to shame and peers with anyone anywhere.
Didn't I just read somewhere that Google is now the largest ISP on the internet? They don't put most tier 1's to shame, they put all of them to shame. They are even planning on installing a 1Gbit connection to somewhere between 50,000 and 500,000 homes in the next few years. Mostly because they think other ISPs are lazy, and this should have been done a while ago. Google is cool like that.
With this kind of traffic, it will probably be cost effective for Netflix to do something similar (become an ISP, not sell Gbit internet, but someday maybe). Oddly enough content producers may end up being our way out of the cable/phone company internet lock-in.
If you prefer turn based over real-time why are you bothering with real-time strategy games?
I honestly don't think turn based could possibly "showcase the strategic aspect". In reality things happen at the same time, and a real strategy must take that into account. How can it be showcase the strategic aspect if it removes most of the real strategy?
I don't get the vaccine every year, and look at me!
*shiver, shiver, spew*
I was all set to vote against her until she ended up as the G.O.P. candidate.
If you're going to refer to two women in the same sentence, please do not use pronouns for both. Since you were last talking about Carly Fiorina, the first "her" should be referencing Fiorina. Since that makes no sense in context, you should have simply said "I was all set to vote against Barbara Boxer until Carly Fiorina ended up as the G.O.P. candidate."
It's the only arrangement that makes any sense.
Carry on!
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.
Apparently you can't read.
The UK government wants the US government to pull this sort of thing off the net.
Google can do what they like, but the US Govt. has rules it must follow in that regard, and they are nothing like the UK's rules (which are more like suggestions for them anyway).
So this thing updates every 2 seconds [with a 100x one in the works]
Holy crap how did you misread that so bad? It's every 2 seconds now, which is more than 100 times quicker than it was two years ago. That's a huge improvement in a short period of time, and it is only going to get better. They need another order of magnitude (10 times) improvement to get it to a reasonable frame-rate of 30fps. Expect that in another year or so.
Also note that this is live video at 0.5fps. They could probably get that order of magnitude improvement if they weren't shooting live.
It's a joke, don't get your panties in a bunch.
And it's still extremely limited.
Seriously, have you ever used them?
So we should just stick to the fact that we have to pay for it for 3 years before it goes into effect, which will keep it "budget neutral" for a whopping 10 years.
Oh yeah, sounds much better in that light.