So it seems possible that the FBI could be quoting accurate odds, while at the same time there being lots of matches within the database.
The odds might be technically accurate, but are they the correct odds for the FBI to be selling?
If a typical situation is having a suspect already in custody and then having the authorities run the suspect's DNA against a sample found at the crime scene, 110 billion is probably fair enough. If the authorities find some DNA and fish through the system for someone who matches, 110 billion is meaningless.
Just thinking out loud here, but is it actually wrong?
Even though the odds of sharing a birthday with a random person are about 1/365, if you have 23 people in a room, you are likely to have at least one "birthday" match. With about 60 people, it's almost a certainty.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation gives me about half a million as the number of DNA samples required to give a 50/50 chance of having two people with matching DNA samples... but I might have messed up on that.
Surely if you'd MMS'd a friend a picture message, and they'd changed to a phone without MMS without you knowing - your picture will most likely be available on O2's website. Is this right? Should it be more secured? Or don't you care about who see's your 'private' conversations?
Yes, it probably should be more secure. Not allowing the pages to be indexed by Google would be a good start. But as it stands, unless there are further flaws I'm not aware of, you still need the 64 bit key to intercept the message. Unless the person I've sent a private message to makes that key public, the message should remain private.
On the other hand, I'm not under any delusions that privacy exists for SMS/MMS messages here in Australia, so I wouldn't send sensitive information through SMS/MMS in the first place. Not that it excuses any mistakes, I just have low expectations to begin with.
Try searching for each of those 16-character IDs, and you'll see that each has already been posted publically, and most seem to be from just the one user. Which makes sense, if Google managed to index them in the first place.
Sure, 02 should have taken steps to avoid being indexed, but they aren't responsible for leaking the photos.
And It would be quite easy to write a script to try various combinations of 16 hex digits to try and randomly view a photo but depending on how many photos are being hosted the hit rate could be quite low.? Yeah, seeing as there are about 10^19 combinations, the hit rate would be fairly low. Did the author seriously consider this to be flaw?
The troll moderations are because you completely ignore all relevant medical research on the issue and because your argument is based on little more than a "No true Scotsman" fallacy (with a strong hint of selection bias since your opinions seem to be forged by those who needed counseling).
Its a lot more subtle and a lot more pervasive than that. Like the relatively few number of women portrayed in those jobs in movies and television.
Or perhaps by telling them that Engineering is inherently sexist, that the odds are stacked against them, and that they will be held down every step of the way? When the reality is nothing of the sort?
As for movies/television, it's a touchy issue. As long as the shows attempt to be realistic, and under-represent women in engineering and the sciences, they will have a positive feedback effect. If they don't, there are serious risks of tokenism (and potentially serious risks to artistic expression).
Close... the perigee becomes lower and the period becomes faster, so you will slowly overtake the ISS.
Although the orbits intersect, when you get back to where you started, the ISS is slightly behind, so you won't run into it.
It's actually another good example of a violation of common sense in orbital mechanics - you have to decelerate to speed your orbit up, and vice versa.
The proper response is to change the law - not whine about felons not having the right to vote.
You say that as if the two issues are completely unrelated. Okay, fair enough, personal use of drugs is a felony, and that's the way it is. Personally, I believe it runs counter to the fundamental sovereignty people have over their bodies, and that the system is unbelievably corrupt, racist and authoritarian. But that is the law, and the right course of action is to try to get the law changed.
Don't pretend for a moment, however, that muzzling those who are most directly affected by this law is not an abuse of the democratic process of epic proportions. The right to vote should be absolutely inalienable.
It's probably similar to saying a computer program can play mathematically optimum "scissors, paper, rock" or whatever your local name for the game is.
Against a weak, predictable player, they will definitely have an edge, but under a worst-case scenario, they can default to a completely random play to ensure that their EV doesn't fall below zero.
This doesn't compete with geothermal or tidal generation, so it's not necessarily any "better" or "worse". It's really more of an energy storage method (like a battery) that may even be useful as a supplement to something like geothermal generation. Store the energy at night when demand is low, and release it during the day when demand is high, and you'll smooth out variations in the power supply.
Also, you need a pressure difference to extract energy, just a high pressure is not good enough (similar to the fact that you can't extract electrical power from heat alone - you also need a cold reservoir).
The median is an average. Average is actually rather loosely defined, and the arithmetic mean that everyone seems to think it is synonymous with is only one of a number of definitions.
It's going to come down to how the law is interpreted. Many of the responsibilities of a PC tech could fall under the umbrella of "private investigator" work, and this seems to be the assumption behind TFA's interpretation. (e.g. File recovery, diagnosis of problems, checking log files, installing firewalls, etc...)
Given that it is Texas, it's probably the worst of both worlds - techs will be forced to get PI certification and will then be compelled to perform kiddie-porn investigations on behalf of the state for every system that comes in. It's possible this is all an over-reaction to someone thinking out loud about the applications of this law, though.
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
Yes, but we don't require accountants to have medical licenses or doctors to be bar certified.
That's what requiring PC techs to have PI certifications is equivalent to.
Finally, of course, this leaves the problem of certifying that, let's say a Chanel bag, is the real thing on eBay and not a fake. This could be helped by supplying some sort of authenticity voucher that sellers could produce if asked by eBay.
Actually, there's a very simple way to tell if designer goods on eBay are fake or not. In fact, it's basically the same way you can tell that a politician is lying (i.e. his lips are moving). That may not be a universal truth, but it's certainly been my experience, even with supposedly reputable sellers.
To what extent eBay should be held accountable for counterfeit goods sold on their site, I'm not sure, but given that eBay actually advertises the availability of designer goods by name in their auctions, I'm inclined to think that they're guilty of at least false advertising.
The problem with defining the kilogram as the mass some arbitrary physical object is that all the measurement equipment in the world has to be calibrated and traceable to that object. If a non-physical standard could be developed, we could one day have extremely accurate balances that self-calibrate using that standard.
This is actually what they are trying to overcome - the platinum kilogram prototype is obviously a poor choice for reproducibility.
But if one of these Silicon spheres is destroyed, the definition is still reproducible. You just need to recreate a pure Silicon-28 sphere of the same size. The metre is already defined exactly in terms of the speed of light and the second, so you know exactly how big to make the replacement sphere.
Actually, it doesn't have to be exactly the same size, you just have to know the new size and be able to correct for that change accordingly.
Not sure at what step you're not understanding the problem (although I do admit that the wiki article needs work).
Basically, a moving charge (say, electrons in a wire) induces a magnetic field. A moving charge in a magnetic field (say, electrons in another wire) will experience a force. So two current carrying wires will experience a force between them (attractive or repulsive, depending on which way the current flows).
The ampere (unit of current) is defined in terms of what current it takes to produce a given force between two conductors. So if you precisely measure the current and the attractive force (and also the geometry of the system, which I think is the hard part), you get a definition for the newton (unit of force) from the ampere (unit of current). Since force is a unit derived from mass (needs defining, hence the discussion), the second (already defined), and the metre (also already defined), defining the newton defines the kilogram.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess... it's giving you a hadron?
So it seems possible that the FBI could be quoting accurate odds, while at the same time there being lots of matches within the database.
The odds might be technically accurate, but are they the correct odds for the FBI to be selling?
If a typical situation is having a suspect already in custody and then having the authorities run the suspect's DNA against a sample found at the crime scene, 110 billion is probably fair enough. If the authorities find some DNA and fish through the system for someone who matches, 110 billion is meaningless.
Just thinking out loud here, but is it actually wrong?
Even though the odds of sharing a birthday with a random person are about 1/365, if you have 23 people in a room, you are likely to have at least one "birthday" match. With about 60 people, it's almost a certainty.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation gives me about half a million as the number of DNA samples required to give a 50/50 chance of having two people with matching DNA samples... but I might have messed up on that.
Australia is in Europe now?
Surely if you'd MMS'd a friend a picture message, and they'd changed to a phone without MMS without you knowing - your picture will most likely be available on O2's website. Is this right? Should it be more secured? Or don't you care about who see's your 'private' conversations?
Yes, it probably should be more secure. Not allowing the pages to be indexed by Google would be a good start. But as it stands, unless there are further flaws I'm not aware of, you still need the 64 bit key to intercept the message. Unless the person I've sent a private message to makes that key public, the message should remain private.
On the other hand, I'm not under any delusions that privacy exists for SMS/MMS messages here in Australia, so I wouldn't send sensitive information through SMS/MMS in the first place. Not that it excuses any mistakes, I just have low expectations to begin with.
Try searching for each of those 16-character IDs, and you'll see that each has already been posted publically, and most seem to be from just the one user. Which makes sense, if Google managed to index them in the first place.
Sure, 02 should have taken steps to avoid being indexed, but they aren't responsible for leaking the photos.
And It would be quite easy to write a script to try various combinations of 16 hex digits to try and randomly view a photo but depending on how many photos are being hosted the hit rate could be quite low.? Yeah, seeing as there are about 10^19 combinations, the hit rate would be fairly low. Did the author seriously consider this to be flaw?
The troll moderations are because you completely ignore all relevant medical research on the issue and because your argument is based on little more than a "No true Scotsman" fallacy (with a strong hint of selection bias since your opinions seem to be forged by those who needed counseling).
Its a lot more subtle and a lot more pervasive than that. Like the relatively few number of women portrayed in those jobs in movies and television.
Or perhaps by telling them that Engineering is inherently sexist, that the odds are stacked against them, and that they will be held down every step of the way? When the reality is nothing of the sort?
As for movies/television, it's a touchy issue. As long as the shows attempt to be realistic, and under-represent women in engineering and the sciences, they will have a positive feedback effect. If they don't, there are serious risks of tokenism (and potentially serious risks to artistic expression).
Close... the perigee becomes lower and the period becomes faster, so you will slowly overtake the ISS.
Although the orbits intersect, when you get back to where you started, the ISS is slightly behind, so you won't run into it.
It's actually another good example of a violation of common sense in orbital mechanics - you have to decelerate to speed your orbit up, and vice versa.
The proper response is to change the law - not whine about felons not having the right to vote.
You say that as if the two issues are completely unrelated. Okay, fair enough, personal use of drugs is a felony, and that's the way it is. Personally, I believe it runs counter to the fundamental sovereignty people have over their bodies, and that the system is unbelievably corrupt, racist and authoritarian. But that is the law, and the right course of action is to try to get the law changed.
Don't pretend for a moment, however, that muzzling those who are most directly affected by this law is not an abuse of the democratic process of epic proportions. The right to vote should be absolutely inalienable.
One word: Chargeback.
Let your credit card company sort it out if Paypal won't.
This page probably explains it better than I can.
You're really measuring the force, by measuring the current required to balance a mass.
Updating your virus definitions?
It's probably similar to saying a computer program can play mathematically optimum "scissors, paper, rock" or whatever your local name for the game is.
Against a weak, predictable player, they will definitely have an edge, but under a worst-case scenario, they can default to a completely random play to ensure that their EV doesn't fall below zero.
You'll also need to purify the dirty vacuum that is present in the earth's atmosphere.
I suggest a vacuum cleaner for the task. (ducks)
This doesn't compete with geothermal or tidal generation, so it's not necessarily any "better" or "worse". It's really more of an energy storage method (like a battery) that may even be useful as a supplement to something like geothermal generation. Store the energy at night when demand is low, and release it during the day when demand is high, and you'll smooth out variations in the power supply.
Also, you need a pressure difference to extract energy, just a high pressure is not good enough (similar to the fact that you can't extract electrical power from heat alone - you also need a cold reservoir).
Maybe so, but it's a fairly narrow view to consider only one application of copper and say worrying about its shortage is hence unnecessary.
It's like saying plastic/glass bottles are an alternative to aluminium cans, so it doesn't matter if we run out of aluminium tomorrow.
Even sticking to copper wires, how are you going to carry electrical power through fibre-optic cables?
Apparently Gallium isn't a Rare Earth Element.
Actually, neither is Hafnium, Indium, Zinc or Copper. Does the article have any connection to the rare earth elements at all?
DEA?
From my (also very limited) understanding of the DEA, they don't have a lot to do with energy usage and emissions controls.
The median is an average. Average is actually rather loosely defined, and the arithmetic mean that everyone seems to think it is synonymous with is only one of a number of definitions.
It's going to come down to how the law is interpreted. Many of the responsibilities of a PC tech could fall under the umbrella of "private investigator" work, and this seems to be the assumption behind TFA's interpretation. (e.g. File recovery, diagnosis of problems, checking log files, installing firewalls, etc...)
Given that it is Texas, it's probably the worst of both worlds - techs will be forced to get PI certification and will then be compelled to perform kiddie-porn investigations on behalf of the state for every system that comes in. It's possible this is all an over-reaction to someone thinking out loud about the applications of this law, though.
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
Yes, but we don't require accountants to have medical licenses or doctors to be bar certified.
That's what requiring PC techs to have PI certifications is equivalent to.
Finally, of course, this leaves the problem of certifying that, let's say a Chanel bag, is the real thing on eBay and not a fake. This could be helped by supplying some sort of authenticity voucher that sellers could produce if asked by eBay.
Actually, there's a very simple way to tell if designer goods on eBay are fake or not. In fact, it's basically the same way you can tell that a politician is lying (i.e. his lips are moving). That may not be a universal truth, but it's certainly been my experience, even with supposedly reputable sellers.
To what extent eBay should be held accountable for counterfeit goods sold on their site, I'm not sure, but given that eBay actually advertises the availability of designer goods by name in their auctions, I'm inclined to think that they're guilty of at least false advertising.
The problem with defining the kilogram as the mass some arbitrary physical object is that all the measurement equipment in the world has to be calibrated and traceable to that object. If a non-physical standard could be developed, we could one day have extremely accurate balances that self-calibrate using that standard.
This is actually what they are trying to overcome - the platinum kilogram prototype is obviously a poor choice for reproducibility.
But if one of these Silicon spheres is destroyed, the definition is still reproducible. You just need to recreate a pure Silicon-28 sphere of the same size. The metre is already defined exactly in terms of the speed of light and the second, so you know exactly how big to make the replacement sphere.
Actually, it doesn't have to be exactly the same size, you just have to know the new size and be able to correct for that change accordingly.
Not sure at what step you're not understanding the problem (although I do admit that the wiki article needs work).
Basically, a moving charge (say, electrons in a wire) induces a magnetic field. A moving charge in a magnetic field (say, electrons in another wire) will experience a force. So two current carrying wires will experience a force between them (attractive or repulsive, depending on which way the current flows).
The ampere (unit of current) is defined in terms of what current it takes to produce a given force between two conductors. So if you precisely measure the current and the attractive force (and also the geometry of the system, which I think is the hard part), you get a definition for the newton (unit of force) from the ampere (unit of current). Since force is a unit derived from mass (needs defining, hence the discussion), the second (already defined), and the metre (also already defined), defining the newton defines the kilogram.
Clear as mud?