"the question arises as to how such acts of fraud are being made profitable." "Comments on the matter have brought up anew the topic of RFID-blocking wallets as necessary everyday security."
Seriously? You weren't able to see that relation?
Read your own text slowly. This time, try to think while you read.
Ok. I'm not sure you'll manage it. Let's try a simpler with the key words in bold: "OMG! How will anyone make a profit out of this?!" followed by "It's time to buy an RFID-blocking wallet!"
Well, it's for the client to choose which method is more convenient to him.. You can have your packets in time or without the cone of ultra-energetic particles that vaporizes your entire civilization.
97% to detect irregular behavior is completely useless unless the rate of regular and irregular behavior is reasonably balanced. In most commercial settings the rate is biased towards regular behavior by several orders of magnitude. In other words, thousands of times more more biased than 97:3.
Therefore, this system will have orders of magnitude more false positives than positives. So the positives will just disappear inside a mass of angry customers.
In short; the ratio of success has to be in the same order of magnitude as the ratio of irregular behavior. e.g.: for Netflix you'd need better than 99.99% precision.
Asking an Atheist to define Religion is about as fucking stupid as like asking a Blind Man to define Color. They have no frame of reference to even understand the question, let alone the answer.
There you go. I know that's the stupidest thing I'll read today, and I've not even reached my second coffee.
Let's ask the stars about the origin of the universe! Astronomers aren't stars, so they have no frame of reference to even understand the question!
Let's ask dogs about veterinary medicine! Let's ask babies about what to feed them!
I find your argument that religion and all spirituality etc is a poison of the mind to be factually inaccurate, given the scientific although circumstantial evidence that people with religion tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc than people without religion.
What if imbeciles "tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc"?
The reality is, if a knife is of sufficient concern to pilots, than likely it should not be on the streets in a readily accessible child use format that allows children to damage other children or do any other combination of stupid things. Especially something so difficult to trace as a knife. Quite simply there is simply to high a percentage of ignorant people prone to stupid decision to allow a range of products to be readily accessible to the public, whether that ignorance be as a result of age, genetics, lead or other kinds of brain function poisoning or poor upbringing. Sure create a smarter, saner more healthy society and all that junk becomes safely accessible but we have yet to do that, hence we are forced to continue to attempt to make our societies idiot proof. Who does reproduce or who does not, who is allowed the responsibility of bringing up the next generation and who is not, who is allowed to become and educator in what kind of environment and who is banned (cheat on these and you deserve to be punished by the crimes committed by failures in the system to turn a foetus into a whole and complete contributing citizen).
There is some involuntary comedy in the fact that people here seem to be complaining loudly about how they have to tolerate all this intolerance.
You are making the exact mistake I complain about: treating all complaints as equal.
I am not complaining about complaints, I'm complaining about: - Acting upon complaints without merit. - The lack of critical thinking in analyzing the merit in complaints. - The lack of teaching effort dedicated to create that critical thinking in recent generations.
Specifically, I suggested John Cleese shouldn't focus on the first point.
Are they all planning on living in their parents basements, communicating only via text messages, and hoping the app they wrote becomes a big seller so they don't have to really work for a living?
Complaints about stupid things aren't a problem because of the impact of the solutions. They are a problem because of the decision of responding to all complaints, regardless of their legitimacy.
e.g.: When someone complains about hurt feelings, the problem isn't that the solution will destroy criticism and humor. The problem is taking action based on the complaint without analyzing its merit.
And, if one decides to go even one step before that, the problem is that the constant erosion of the teaching of critical thinking creates a population unable to think critically, which in turn makes that population incapable of deciding which situations are problems that have to be dealt with, and which are nonsense that has to be ignored.
It's: [Eliminate the teaching of critical thinking.] -> [Population takes action over silly complaints.] -> [Illogical action has consequences.]
The residential street is 100m from a 35mph four lane avenue. No fence, no limits. What stops the same careless kid to step onto the avenue to the left, instead of the street in front?
Following the "think of the careless children!" reasoning, we'd either have to: - lower both limits - lower none - lower the residential street limit and fence the non residential streets to avoid children trespass.
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
Both of those are true in any street.
Are you suggesting to lower all speed limits to "dodgeable by and harmless to careless kids"? Or surround residential zones with guarded fences to stop the careless kids from leaving the special "kid speed" roads.
Sarcasm apart, I suppose you understand it's a matter of degrees, and the speed limit in that street could be correct or otherwise regardless of whether a kid was hit.
"Fujitsu and the Tokyo Institute of Technology have achieved a wireless transmission of 56Gbps over a 10cm distance [...] cellular capacity is improved in some areas through the addition of new mobile masts and small cells, the fibre networks used to link these sites to the wider network is either absent or not feasible to deploy in urban locations or on difficult terrain"
I'm no rocket scientist, but are we sure that the best solution is having satellites fly 10cm over our heads?
Those millions of dollars spent researching moon rocks would be much better spent feeding the starving people on planet earth.
The millions of dollars spent paving your country's roads would also be better spent feeding the starving people. And the million spent in movies, sports or producing reality shows.
Why is it always science that has to justify its usefulness for the good of humanity compared to feeding the poor? Why not every other human venture, of which the immense majority add a minuscule value compared to space exploration?
Slashdot Mirror
If the choice becomes Clinton vs Trump, The victory will go to Mr. of the Above.
Also, I still cant get my hands on a pi zero.
Check your retailer. You can get a zero for every two PI.
R.
Burma shave
China, Europe or India have to put people on the moon to relight US population's push to get back to the head of the race.
Until then, it seems simply too hard to get enough political support.
"the question arises as to how such acts of fraud are being made profitable."
"Comments on the matter have brought up anew the topic of RFID-blocking wallets as necessary everyday security."
Seriously? You weren't able to see that relation?
Read your own text slowly. This time, try to think while you read.
Ok. I'm not sure you'll manage it. Let's try a simpler with the key words in bold:
"OMG! How will anyone make a profit out of this?!" followed by "It's time to buy an RFID-blocking wallet!"
Well, it's for the client to choose which method is more convenient to him.. You can have your packets in time or without the cone of ultra-energetic particles that vaporizes your entire civilization.
Never underestimate the spoofing abilities of an Alcubierre drive station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
97% to detect irregular behavior is completely useless unless the rate of regular and irregular behavior is reasonably balanced. In most commercial settings the rate is biased towards regular behavior by several orders of magnitude. In other words, thousands of times more more biased than 97:3.
Therefore, this system will have orders of magnitude more false positives than positives. So the positives will just disappear inside a mass of angry customers.
In short; the ratio of success has to be in the same order of magnitude as the ratio of irregular behavior. e.g.: for Netflix you'd need better than 99.99% precision.
Asking an Atheist to define Religion is about as fucking stupid as like asking a Blind Man to define Color. They have no frame of reference to even understand the question, let alone the answer.
There you go. I know that's the stupidest thing I'll read today, and I've not even reached my second coffee.
Let's ask the stars about the origin of the universe! Astronomers aren't stars, so they have no frame of reference to even understand the question!
Let's ask dogs about veterinary medicine! Let's ask babies about what to feed them!
I find your argument that religion and all spirituality etc is a poison of the mind to be factually inaccurate, given the scientific although circumstantial evidence that people with religion tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc than people without religion.
What if imbeciles "tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc"?
Would you still rather live a long stupid life?
The reality is, if a knife is of sufficient concern to pilots, than likely it should not be on the streets in a readily accessible child use format that allows children to damage other children or do any other combination of stupid things. Especially something so difficult to trace as a knife. Quite simply there is simply to high a percentage of ignorant people prone to stupid decision to allow a range of products to be readily accessible to the public, whether that ignorance be as a result of age, genetics, lead or other kinds of brain function poisoning or poor upbringing. Sure create a smarter, saner more healthy society and all that junk becomes safely accessible but we have yet to do that, hence we are forced to continue to attempt to make our societies idiot proof. Who does reproduce or who does not, who is allowed the responsibility of bringing up the next generation and who is not, who is allowed to become and educator in what kind of environment and who is banned (cheat on these and you deserve to be punished by the crimes committed by failures in the system to turn a foetus into a whole and complete contributing citizen).
Your argument seems solid. Let's ban knives.
Express venturesomely acquiesced to the coadunation; one more of its neoteric, somewhat quixotic, adjudicatures.
What I'd like to know is the truth about chemtrails and aliens.
And also chemtrails.
Why not Venus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There is some involuntary comedy in the fact that people here seem to be complaining loudly about how they have to tolerate all this intolerance.
You are making the exact mistake I complain about: treating all complaints as equal.
I am not complaining about complaints, I'm complaining about:
- Acting upon complaints without merit.
- The lack of critical thinking in analyzing the merit in complaints.
- The lack of teaching effort dedicated to create that critical thinking in recent generations.
Specifically, I suggested John Cleese shouldn't focus on the first point.
You are making the second mistake.
1/6
Now try to find the other errors.
"hmor"? What the fuck is "hmor"?
Are they all planning on living in their parents basements, communicating only via text messages, and hoping the app they wrote becomes a big seller so they don't have to really work for a living?
No.
The planning stage is long past.
Complaints about stupid things aren't a problem because of the impact of the solutions. They are a problem because of the decision of responding to all complaints, regardless of their legitimacy.
e.g.: When someone complains about hurt feelings, the problem isn't that the solution will destroy criticism and humor. The problem is taking action based on the complaint without analyzing its merit.
And, if one decides to go even one step before that, the problem is that the constant erosion of the teaching of critical thinking creates a population unable to think critically, which in turn makes that population incapable of deciding which situations are problems that have to be dealt with, and which are nonsense that has to be ignored.
It's: [Eliminate the teaching of critical thinking.] -> [Population takes action over silly complaints.] -> [Illogical action has consequences.]
Don't focus on the last step.
The residential street is 100m from a 35mph four lane avenue. No fence, no limits. What stops the same careless kid to step onto the avenue to the left, instead of the street in front?
Following the "think of the careless children!" reasoning, we'd either have to:
- lower both limits
- lower none
- lower the residential street limit and fence the non residential streets to avoid children trespass.
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
Both of those are true in any street.
Are you suggesting to lower all speed limits to "dodgeable by and harmless to careless kids"? Or surround residential zones with guarded fences to stop the careless kids from leaving the special "kid speed" roads.
Sarcasm apart, I suppose you understand it's a matter of degrees, and the speed limit in that street could be correct or otherwise regardless of whether a kid was hit.
http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/...
http://myinforms.com/en-gb/a/2...
http://www.dailyprogress.com/n...
(Maybe he read from one of the above)
"Fujitsu and the Tokyo Institute of Technology have achieved a wireless transmission of 56Gbps over a 10cm distance [...] cellular capacity is improved in some areas through the addition of new mobile masts and small cells, the fibre networks used to link these sites to the wider network is either absent or not feasible to deploy in urban locations or on difficult terrain"
I'm no rocket scientist, but are we sure that the best solution is having satellites fly 10cm over our heads?
Obviously they hide the stars to avoid people from locating the lander.
Otherwise, taking into account the absolute lack of security or military forces in the region, it could be stolen.
Those millions of dollars spent researching moon rocks would be much better spent feeding the starving people on planet earth.
The millions of dollars spent paving your country's roads would also be better spent feeding the starving people. And the million spent in movies, sports or producing reality shows.
Why is it always science that has to justify its usefulness for the good of humanity compared to feeding the poor? Why not every other human venture, of which the immense majority add a minuscule value compared to space exploration?