In other words, digits 0,1,2,3,4 get rounded DOWN digits 5,6,7,8,9 get rounded UP
This seems correct when you first look at it, but the correct statement is actually:
digit 0 gets nothing (-0) digit 1 gets rounded down (-1) digit 2 gets rounded down (-2) digit 3 gets rounded down (-3) digit 4 gets rounded down (-4) digit 5 gets rounded up (+5) digit 6 gets rounded up (+4) digit 7 gets rounded up (+3) digit 8 gets rounded up (+2) digit 9 gets rounded up (+1)
Now add up all the pluses and minuses, and you'll find that the total is +5. That's because you're rounding TO zero, so zero never gets rounded. If you assume a random (i.e. even) distribution of all possible numbers, then you'll round up more than you'll round down.
With the even/odd system, half the time you get a +5, the other half you get a -5, so they cancel each other out.
However, we must remember that this is only used when there are no digits after the one we're basing our decision on. Therefore, 82.451 should be rounded to 82.5, and 82.449 should be rounded to 82.4; only 82.4500000... will be rounded to 82.4, and 82.550000... will be rounded to 82.6
where Microsoft (or M$, MicroShaft, Microsucks or whatever you kiddies want to call them) is ridiculed and made to be Satan incarnate? Look at the damn Microsoft topic icon on slashdot! MS as the Borg! har har.
Someone modded this up as "insightful"? I don't think it takes much insight to realize that M$ "is ridiculed and made to be Satan incarnate" on/.
I don't know where you get the idea that it's deliberately for "foreigners"... I heard this story on the radio a month ago, and the story definitely mentioned it was to make counterfeiting more difficult.
The newest Canadian bills are not only different colours, but they have braille, a special glossy maple leaf overlay, and a bunch of pressed on 'dots' which, with some difficulty, can be peeled off to prove they are not just printed on. All of these things (except, perhaps, the braille) are primarily to stop counterfeiting.
... and guess what: I use both Canadian and U.S. currency every day, and the different colours of Canadian money make it wayyy easier to differentiate different denominations.
Consider this, many times, you just went to a bank machine and got $100 as five $20 bills. Then you buy a pack of gum to break one of the twenties. Later, when you go to pay for something that's $4.95, and you want to find that $5 bill you know is in your wallet, it's MUCH easier to just look for a blue piece of paper, rather than looking at the writing on each individual bill. Maybe it only saves you 5 or 10 seconds, but if you're in a line with 5 or 10 people, and each person takes 5 or 10 seconds longer, that adds up over the course of a day.
Besides that, twice in the last two years, someone giving me change in the U.S. has tried to pass off a $1 as a $10. I noticed it, but I wonder how many times they actually succeed?
From the article: "It gives all kids an opportunity to use technology," he said.
That's a pretty pointless statement to make. When the kids ride a schoolbus to school, they're using technology. When they use a toaster to toast their pop-tarts in the morning, they're using technology. When they change the channel on their TV with a remote control, they're using technology. If they have a wristwatch, they're using technology!
It sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is getting kickbacks from the handheld manufacturers.
Try Reseller Ratings. When I used to buy individual parts routinely, I always checked out suppliers there first, to see how good they were for speed of delivery, customer service, and most importantly, returns.
Where gene patents are still most relevant is where they are most needed, over sequences not occuring in nature... But if the gene is naturally occuring, then a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (non-novel/obvious).
That's interesting... what if I design a gene that no one has ever discovered before, so I get the patent, and start using it in a product. However, suppose that later this same gene appeared due to a mutation. The mutation is a natural process. Would another company be able to steal my design now?
I just don't think you can separate designed genes from naturally occurring ones, because any gene could occur in nature, given enough time. You also can't prove that the gene doesn't already exist in nature, and we just haven't found it.
You might want to consider the RIM BlackBerry 957:
1] Longer battery life
The battery lasts 1 week of constant use, and up to one month of occasional use.
2] An actual keyboard (or a stylus that works)
Yep, keyboard. I'm hoping a newer version will have a backlit keyboard (since the screen is already backlit).
3] Upgrade-able software
Yes, I download new software all the time for it (try www.rimroad.com). RIM also provides all the documentation you need to write your own apps.
4] Lots, LOTS of memory
The RIM apps take very little memory, so all you need the memory for is your data. I recently stuffed my small company's 1500 person contact database into it and it didn't even blink.
5] Of course, the ability to run in a Beowulf cluster...
Errr, probably not... but it does have the built in cell modem, which is the best part. The RIM BB is really a wireless email solution, and it's always connected.
Warning: most slashdotters won't like it because it doesn't have a colour screen. Functionally, however, I think it's one of the best, most useful, appropriately priced PDA's on the market.
You make many good points. I'll check out that book.
self-defense is an important basic right
Yes, it is. However, a gun isn't the only way to defend yourself or your home. I would suggest that owning a dog is more effective of a deterrent to a burglar than owning a gun.
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
The USA has something like 20,000 laws covering guns, their possession, transporting them, using them, carrying them, etc.
This is likely very true. There are also laws against posting nude photos of Steffi Graf on the internet, but that didn't stop someone from doing it. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that any of those 20,000 U.S. laws prevent anyone from obtaining a gun - they just say what you can/can't do with them once you have them. From an idealistic standpoint, I would agree that this is the "right" type of law.
I don't want to get into a religious argument here, and please understand that I don't think that banning guns in the USA would actually help anything. However, up here in Canada, the laws go further - you can't buy a handgun here, and you can't own one without a LOT of permits. As a result, a small time criminal finds it much tougher to get a handgun (you can't get them in a store, and they're much more expensive on the street - good old supply and demand). If you want to walk down the road with a shotgun, or rifle, go ahead, but at least your victims can see you coming. (Well, that's the idea anyway).
We admit that people still get shot in Canada (after all, if you can't get one here, just go to the US and buy one!). However, even though there is nearly as much violent crime in Canada, less of it is committed by guns, and more importantly, there are fewer accidental deaths, particularly with children shooting themselves or someone else.
You can pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun; and all the criminals will carry a gun anyway.
There are laws (I presume) which say that you cannot build (or buy) parts for a nuclear weapon. It seems reasonable to assume that those laws do help prevent nuclear weapons from being prolific. I think that if you have a law that says you can't buy a gun (or nuke), then criminals (or terrorists) will resort to knives (or hijacking planes) to commit their crime (or act of terror). My point is that passing a law that honestly restricts access to a certain technology does reduce the proliferation of that technology. However, people are resourceful, and they will use whatever they can get their hands on. For instance, only passing a law that bans knives to prevent crime would be pointless, because using a gun is more effective and more destructive. Similarly, passing a law to make airplanes illegal, but allowing people to build or buy nukes would also be pointless.
The good news here is that you are happy to be living in the US with your system, and I'm happy to be living in Canada with our system. Are we both wrong, both right, or ignorantly blissful? Any way, I'm glad we're both content, and even with these differences, we aren't all that far apart.
Does the CDDB track every time the CD is inserted into the CD driver? Perhaps it's just counting every time someone popped the disk in and out, trying to get it to start playing...
This is more of a gray area than people realize. Certainly, it's the criminal's *fault*, but there is a logical argument to restrict the enabling technology if the result of its use is particularly destructive.
For instance, if you wanted to carry a nuclear weapon in a backpack around NYC, you could theoretically use the same argument: so long as the radioactive material is properly shielded, there's no harm done to anyone unless you detonate the bomb. However, the consequences of you using it are catastrophic, so it's illegal for you to possess such a device (at least I sure hope it is!).
Now, gun control seems like such a divided issue because people are divided over the severity of what happens when they are used. Many people do actually choose to use weapons in harmful ways, and yes, it is THEIR fault. However, since you can't easily stop someone from shooting you if they already have a gun in their hand, the idea of gun control is to eliminate the risk by not giving you the opportunity.
Certainly, there are lots of arguments on both sides, including one of feasibility... supposedly there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and you aren't going to just tell people to turn them in and expect them to do it. That wouldn't work.
Getting back on topic, this article is kind of the same: force the ISP to check all content before it goes online. This prevents a malicious user from posting malicious content, but seems to put blame on the ISP, when we know it should be put on the user him/herself. Again, we need to assess the risk of damage caused by a malicious user, and compare it with the cost to all the non-malicious users.
Personally, I'm pulling for the free speech side here, but I'm just a silly Canadian, so don't mind me.;^)
Hollywood says to NASA: All of the ADC's on your future Mars rovers will have to include a cop-chip to make sure that your sensors shut down if they sense any Metallica songs on the Red Planet.
NASA says to Hollywood: We're going to sue you for every time the "NASA" logo has ever appeared in a Hollywood movie.
He said that they should not be equated with terrorists.
Okay... I kind of see how the original post was implying that the US is acting like a terrorist, and I agree that's stupid. However, in my experience (talking with Americans I work with), Americans in general honestly don't care when non-American civilians or American allies are killed by American actions. I actually heard comments by co-workers like "those stupid Canadians probably were in the wrong place anyway" and "they were only four Canadians, who cares?" These were taunts, but they were obviously in very poor taste. The post I replied to seems to imply this same attitude (i.e., so, we killed a few civilians - big deal, they weren't American).
It's true that my opinions are biased (not that this separates me much from anybody on the planet). However, I stand beside my point that many people see Afghanistan as the enemy, when in reality, the people of Afghanistan are our allies.
At any rate, we're probably waaayyy OT, so I apologize.
In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?
Ok, Rah Rah U-S-A and all that... go America.
However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden. They did not vote the Taliban into power, and they did not invite Al Qaida (sp?) to their country. As a matter of fact, I believe that the people of Afghanistan (and their army, the Northern Alliance) were already fighting against Taliban rule LONG before the US or its allies ever got involved.
Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized for this. The 9/11 attackers targeted civilians because they are terrorists, and they see American civilians as their enemies. The Afghan people are not your enemies, they are your allies! It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that.
Would I be able to patent the act of patenting stupid, obvious ideas? Then I could get a royalty from the next person who tries to patent something like breathing. Maybe I could patent the process of obtaining a patent on someone's genes - now THAT would be lucrative!
Some people might be better off without lights or connection to a power grid.
So I suppose it never occurred to anyone that this might be of use in hospitals or clinics?
Does anyone realize how important low cost oil lamps were to families back during the industrial revolution. In those times, a worker would generally work all day until dark, and then after work, spend an hour or two of quality time with his/her family. How much quality would your time have if it was dark and you had no light source?
We all need to step back from our CRTs/LCDs for a second and realize that many places haven't even reached where the western world was 100 years ago!
It sounds like that rule doesn't apply to the 2.4 GHz band. That band was reserved specifically for use by Microwave ovens, etc., which transmit but don't receive.
Manufacturers started using it for communications equipment because you don't need an FCC license to use this band - you just have to prove that it doesn't create too much interference in other bands. As long as you stay in the 2.4 GHz band, then the FCC, more or less, doesn't care. All you have to do is make your device work well enough for people to buy it.
This also means that if some manufacturer wanted to deliberately create a device to block all 2.4 GHz communications in a local area, they could apply under Section 18 (or whatever it was) to have such a device approved. There's nothing that the cordless phone manufacturers could do about it.
Frankly, they should have known better. However, we tend to support a throw-away society, so you'll just have to go and buy something that works in the 5 GHz band now. At least now there's bandwidth specifically allocated to communications in that frequency range.
I wish I could remember the exact details, but this was the basic idea:
Some branch of the US military was trying to train a neural network to look at a photograph and recognize whether or not there was a tank there.
The people designing the system had pictures of scenes without tanks, and pictures of scenes with tanks. Half of the pictures were sealed away in a safe for later testing. Then, a neural net was trained on the first half of the pictures until it could, with 100% accuracy, correctly identify if there was a tank, or not, in the picture. Finally, the second half of the pictures were presented to the algorithm, and it also correctly identified those pictures as tank/not-tank.
However, when it was tried on another series of pictures, the neural net could only accurately identify about 50% - no better than chance. The engineers who trained the net were dumbfounded, so they went back and started studying exactly what the neural net was trying to use to recognize a tank.
Finally, they found the answer - all the pictures with tanks were taken on an overcast day, and all the pictures without tanks were taken on a sunny day. The million dollar neural net had been trained to differentiate between blue and grey skies! Back to the drawing board...
... and it was GREAT! It couldn't have been done better. I highly recommend it. The direction and writing was good - it didn't try to explain anything to the audience like they were stupid. I might actually go see it again tonight, and I Never do that!
From the article:...in response to the 2001 NSF survey, a sizable minority (41 percent) of the public said that astrology was at least somewhat scientific...
The words "at least somewhat" indicate that it was one of those questions where you rank a statement from 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all", and 5 is "absolutely".
That would probably mean that anyone selecting 2 or above is considered a person who believes that astrology is "at least somewhat scientific". Unfortunately, someone who you might consider a "fence sitter", who answered 3, gets counted as a full believer.
"How do you know when a scientist is lying? She's quoting statistics!" - me
Does clicking "OK" to an EULA actually mean anything legally? I can't see how it can be binding, because there's no record of a signature (not even a digital one). There's no recorded date, or identity of who clicked the mouse.
... and if it's not legally binding, then why should I bother to read it?
Slashdot Mirror
In other words,
digits 0,1,2,3,4 get rounded DOWN
digits 5,6,7,8,9 get rounded UP
This seems correct when you first look at it, but the correct statement is actually:
digit 0 gets nothing (-0)
digit 1 gets rounded down (-1)
digit 2 gets rounded down (-2)
digit 3 gets rounded down (-3)
digit 4 gets rounded down (-4)
digit 5 gets rounded up (+5)
digit 6 gets rounded up (+4)
digit 7 gets rounded up (+3)
digit 8 gets rounded up (+2)
digit 9 gets rounded up (+1)
Now add up all the pluses and minuses, and you'll find that the total is +5. That's because you're rounding TO zero, so zero never gets rounded. If you assume a random (i.e. even) distribution of all possible numbers, then you'll round up more than you'll round down.
With the even/odd system, half the time you get a +5, the other half you get a -5, so they cancel each other out.
However, we must remember that this is only used when there are no digits after the one we're basing our decision on. Therefore, 82.451 should be rounded to 82.5, and 82.449 should be rounded to 82.4; only 82.4500000... will be rounded to 82.4, and 82.550000... will be rounded to 82.6
So why aren't they using it on one of our fine fleet of space shuttles?
Maybe because the space shuttles are grounded.
where Microsoft (or M$, MicroShaft, Microsucks or whatever you kiddies want to call them) is ridiculed and made to be Satan incarnate? Look at the damn Microsoft topic icon on slashdot! MS as the Borg! har har.
/.
Someone modded this up as "insightful"? I don't think it takes much insight to realize that M$ "is ridiculed and made to be Satan incarnate" on
I don't know where you get the idea that it's deliberately for "foreigners"... I heard this story on the radio a month ago, and the story definitely mentioned it was to make counterfeiting more difficult.
The newest Canadian bills are not only different colours, but they have braille, a special glossy maple leaf overlay, and a bunch of pressed on 'dots' which, with some difficulty, can be peeled off to prove they are not just printed on. All of these things (except, perhaps, the braille) are primarily to stop counterfeiting.
... and guess what: I use both Canadian and U.S. currency every day, and the different colours of Canadian money make it wayyy easier to differentiate different denominations.
Consider this, many times, you just went to a bank machine and got $100 as five $20 bills. Then you buy a pack of gum to break one of the twenties. Later, when you go to pay for something that's $4.95, and you want to find that $5 bill you know is in your wallet, it's MUCH easier to just look for a blue piece of paper, rather than looking at the writing on each individual bill. Maybe it only saves you 5 or 10 seconds, but if you're in a line with 5 or 10 people, and each person takes 5 or 10 seconds longer, that adds up over the course of a day.
Besides that, twice in the last two years, someone giving me change in the U.S. has tried to pass off a $1 as a $10. I noticed it, but I wonder how many times they actually succeed?
From the article: "It gives all kids an opportunity to use technology," he said.
That's a pretty pointless statement to make. When the kids ride a schoolbus to school, they're using technology. When they use a toaster to toast their pop-tarts in the morning, they're using technology. When they change the channel on their TV with a remote control, they're using technology. If they have a wristwatch, they're using technology!
It sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is getting kickbacks from the handheld manufacturers.
Try Reseller Ratings. When I used to buy individual parts routinely, I always checked out suppliers there first, to see how good they were for speed of delivery, customer service, and most importantly, returns.
Where gene patents are still most relevant is where they are most needed, over sequences not occuring in nature ... But if the gene is naturally occuring, then a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (non-novel/obvious).
That's interesting... what if I design a gene that no one has ever discovered before, so I get the patent, and start using it in a product. However, suppose that later this same gene appeared due to a mutation. The mutation is a natural process. Would another company be able to steal my design now?
I just don't think you can separate designed genes from naturally occurring ones, because any gene could occur in nature, given enough time. You also can't prove that the gene doesn't already exist in nature, and we just haven't found it.
You might want to consider the RIM BlackBerry 957:
1] Longer battery life
The battery lasts 1 week of constant use, and up to one month of occasional use.
2] An actual keyboard (or a stylus that works)
Yep, keyboard. I'm hoping a newer version will have a backlit keyboard (since the screen is already backlit).
3] Upgrade-able software
Yes, I download new software all the time for it (try www.rimroad.com). RIM also provides all the documentation you need to write your own apps.
4] Lots, LOTS of memory
The RIM apps take very little memory, so all you need the memory for is your data. I recently stuffed my small company's 1500 person contact database into it and it didn't even blink.
5] Of course, the ability to run in a Beowulf cluster...
Errr, probably not... but it does have the built in cell modem, which is the best part. The RIM BB is really a wireless email solution, and it's always connected.
Warning: most slashdotters won't like it because it doesn't have a colour screen. Functionally, however, I think it's one of the best, most useful, appropriately priced PDA's on the market.
You make many good points. I'll check out that book.
self-defense is an important basic right
Yes, it is. However, a gun isn't the only way to defend yourself or your home. I would suggest that owning a dog is more effective of a deterrent to a burglar than owning a gun.
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
The USA has something like 20,000 laws covering guns, their possession, transporting them, using them, carrying them, etc.
This is likely very true. There are also laws against posting nude photos of Steffi Graf on the internet, but that didn't stop someone from doing it. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that any of those 20,000 U.S. laws prevent anyone from obtaining a gun - they just say what you can/can't do with them once you have them. From an idealistic standpoint, I would agree that this is the "right" type of law.
I don't want to get into a religious argument here, and please understand that I don't think that banning guns in the USA would actually help anything. However, up here in Canada, the laws go further - you can't buy a handgun here, and you can't own one without a LOT of permits. As a result, a small time criminal finds it much tougher to get a handgun (you can't get them in a store, and they're much more expensive on the street - good old supply and demand). If you want to walk down the road with a shotgun, or rifle, go ahead, but at least your victims can see you coming. (Well, that's the idea anyway).
We admit that people still get shot in Canada (after all, if you can't get one here, just go to the US and buy one!). However, even though there is nearly as much violent crime in Canada, less of it is committed by guns, and more importantly, there are fewer accidental deaths, particularly with children shooting themselves or someone else.
You can pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun; and all the criminals will carry a gun anyway.
There are laws (I presume) which say that you cannot build (or buy) parts for a nuclear weapon. It seems reasonable to assume that those laws do help prevent nuclear weapons from being prolific. I think that if you have a law that says you can't buy a gun (or nuke), then criminals (or terrorists) will resort to knives (or hijacking planes) to commit their crime (or act of terror). My point is that passing a law that honestly restricts access to a certain technology does reduce the proliferation of that technology. However, people are resourceful, and they will use whatever they can get their hands on. For instance, only passing a law that bans knives to prevent crime would be pointless, because using a gun is more effective and more destructive. Similarly, passing a law to make airplanes illegal, but allowing people to build or buy nukes would also be pointless.
The good news here is that you are happy to be living in the US with your system, and I'm happy to be living in Canada with our system. Are we both wrong, both right, or ignorantly blissful? Any way, I'm glad we're both content, and even with these differences, we aren't all that far apart.
Does the CDDB track every time the CD is inserted into the CD driver? Perhaps it's just counting every time someone popped the disk in and out, trying to get it to start playing...
Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
;^)
This is more of a gray area than people realize. Certainly, it's the criminal's *fault*, but there is a logical argument to restrict the enabling technology if the result of its use is particularly destructive.
For instance, if you wanted to carry a nuclear weapon in a backpack around NYC, you could theoretically use the same argument: so long as the radioactive material is properly shielded, there's no harm done to anyone unless you detonate the bomb. However, the consequences of you using it are catastrophic, so it's illegal for you to possess such a device (at least I sure hope it is!).
Now, gun control seems like such a divided issue because people are divided over the severity of what happens when they are used. Many people do actually choose to use weapons in harmful ways, and yes, it is THEIR fault. However, since you can't easily stop someone from shooting you if they already have a gun in their hand, the idea of gun control is to eliminate the risk by not giving you the opportunity.
Certainly, there are lots of arguments on both sides, including one of feasibility... supposedly there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and you aren't going to just tell people to turn them in and expect them to do it. That wouldn't work.
Getting back on topic, this article is kind of the same: force the ISP to check all content before it goes online. This prevents a malicious user from posting malicious content, but seems to put blame on the ISP, when we know it should be put on the user him/herself. Again, we need to assess the risk of damage caused by a malicious user, and compare it with the cost to all the non-malicious users.
Personally, I'm pulling for the free speech side here, but I'm just a silly Canadian, so don't mind me.
Hollywood says to NASA: All of the ADC's on your future Mars rovers will have to include a cop-chip to make sure that your sensors shut down if they sense any Metallica songs on the Red Planet.
NASA says to Hollywood: We're going to sue you for every time the "NASA" logo has ever appeared in a Hollywood movie.
Hollywood: Okay, never mind...
He said that they should not be equated with terrorists.
Okay... I kind of see how the original post was implying that the US is acting like a terrorist, and I agree that's stupid. However, in my experience (talking with Americans I work with), Americans in general honestly don't care when non-American civilians or American allies are killed by American actions. I actually heard comments by co-workers like "those stupid Canadians probably were in the wrong place anyway" and "they were only four Canadians, who cares?" These were taunts, but they were obviously in very poor taste. The post I replied to seems to imply this same attitude (i.e., so, we killed a few civilians - big deal, they weren't American).
It's true that my opinions are biased (not that this separates me much from anybody on the planet). However, I stand beside my point that many people see Afghanistan as the enemy, when in reality, the people of Afghanistan are our allies.
At any rate, we're probably waaayyy OT, so I apologize.
In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?
Ok, Rah Rah U-S-A and all that... go America.
However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden. They did not vote the Taliban into power, and they did not invite Al Qaida (sp?) to their country. As a matter of fact, I believe that the people of Afghanistan (and their army, the Northern Alliance) were already fighting against Taliban rule LONG before the US or its allies ever got involved.
Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized for this. The 9/11 attackers targeted civilians because they are terrorists, and they see American civilians as their enemies. The Afghan people are not your enemies, they are your allies! It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that.
what next? patenting alert() calls?
Too late! I just registered that one...
Would I be able to patent the act of patenting stupid, obvious ideas? Then I could get a royalty from the next person who tries to patent something like breathing. Maybe I could patent the process of obtaining a patent on someone's genes - now THAT would be lucrative!
Some people might be better off without lights or connection to a power grid.
So I suppose it never occurred to anyone that this might be of use in hospitals or clinics?
Does anyone realize how important low cost oil lamps were to families back during the industrial revolution. In those times, a worker would generally work all day until dark, and then after work, spend an hour or two of quality time with his/her family. How much quality would your time have if it was dark and you had no light source?
We all need to step back from our CRTs/LCDs for a second and realize that many places haven't even reached where the western world was 100 years ago!
It sounds like that rule doesn't apply to the 2.4 GHz band. That band was reserved specifically for use by Microwave ovens, etc., which transmit but don't receive.
Manufacturers started using it for communications equipment because you don't need an FCC license to use this band - you just have to prove that it doesn't create too much interference in other bands. As long as you stay in the 2.4 GHz band, then the FCC, more or less, doesn't care. All you have to do is make your device work well enough for people to buy it.
This also means that if some manufacturer wanted to deliberately create a device to block all 2.4 GHz communications in a local area, they could apply under Section 18 (or whatever it was) to have such a device approved. There's nothing that the cordless phone manufacturers could do about it.
Frankly, they should have known better. However, we tend to support a throw-away society, so you'll just have to go and buy something that works in the 5 GHz band now. At least now there's bandwidth specifically allocated to communications in that frequency range.
I wish I could remember the exact details, but this was the basic idea:
Some branch of the US military was trying to train a neural network to look at a photograph and recognize whether or not there was a tank there.
The people designing the system had pictures of scenes without tanks, and pictures of scenes with tanks. Half of the pictures were sealed away in a safe for later testing. Then, a neural net was trained on the first half of the pictures until it could, with 100% accuracy, correctly identify if there was a tank, or not, in the picture. Finally, the second half of the pictures were presented to the algorithm, and it also correctly identified those pictures as tank/not-tank.
However, when it was tried on another series of pictures, the neural net could only accurately identify about 50% - no better than chance. The engineers who trained the net were dumbfounded, so they went back and started studying exactly what the neural net was trying to use to recognize a tank.
Finally, they found the answer - all the pictures with tanks were taken on an overcast day, and all the pictures without tanks were taken on a sunny day. The million dollar neural net had been trained to differentiate between blue and grey skies! Back to the drawing board...
... and it was GREAT! It couldn't have been done better. I highly recommend it. The direction and writing was good - it didn't try to explain anything to the audience like they were stupid. I might actually go see it again tonight, and I Never do that!
From the article: ...in response to the 2001 NSF survey, a sizable minority (41 percent) of the public said that astrology was at least somewhat scientific...
The words "at least somewhat" indicate that it was one of those questions where you rank a statement from 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all", and 5 is "absolutely".
That would probably mean that anyone selecting 2 or above is considered a person who believes that astrology is "at least somewhat scientific". Unfortunately, someone who you might consider a "fence sitter", who answered 3, gets counted as a full believer.
"How do you know when a scientist is lying? She's quoting statistics!" - me
Does clicking "OK" to an EULA actually mean anything legally? I can't see how it can be binding, because there's no record of a signature (not even a digital one). There's no recorded date, or identity of who clicked the mouse.
... and if it's not legally binding, then why should I bother to read it?
I found this page in there:
Gatorade is a bad neighbour.
... I've been dutifully building a robot soccer (football) spectator. I'm just putting the finishing touches on the riot subroutine now...