As opposed to a fair number of articles both glorifying and demonizing a single ethnic group that ignored the issues to make history in a Guiness Book of World Records type stunt. Woo hoo!!1 First Black President! Now lets see if we can get the most people ever assembled to eat as many hot dogs as possible!!1one!!
Obama's marketing is "here is a video of what I think,
now let my supporters belittle you instead of listening to their consequences."
Fixed the misleading part of the statement. Make no mistake, every conversation I've had about Obama has been responded to with, "and then he'll get us a tax cut, and a stimulus check." Propping up consumerism through bread and circuses will eventually lead to Rome burning. Enjoy the fiddle music, the awfully inspiring music.
Traffic is modeled best as a fluid or gas in motion (I posted above, if a little less coherently). This type of equilibrium can be heard when your pipes creak in a large building as pressure equalizes.
This will probably help in the short term by recommending quicker routes OFF the interstate (get off one exit earlier, for example). Long-term benefits will only be see by cities using this data to shape traffic: time lights (valves in a fluid or gas model), add bus express lines and carpool incentives, etc.
It is, however, the ability to non-invasively gather data is the biggest boon from this program. Cities already spend thousands of dollars on traffic surveys (ever run over the double tubes on the road, seen someone at a stoplight with a clicker?), so this would (once widespread enough) save money for government.
That being said, the worry of this distributed computing project turning into a financial boon with no remuneration to the people who provide the data, (or worse, the data being exploited for control), is a big downside to adoption.
Traffic is traditionally modeled as a fluid, with all points assumed to be moving within a very small tolerance of some speed. When do you see someone NOT going within 10 of the speed limit who isn't an outlier? They are either parked on the road or blazing through traffic.
While recent research has suggested that a gas-based model might give better predictive results, you shouldn't need that kind of fine granularity to be accurate in the near-term.
It is also about providing the required voltage, too. I saw an article on it (/.? Sci Am? Discovery?) a few months back, but there is a company implementing a voltage regulation protocol: one adapter to go from AC to DC, one connector to plug into all devices which require power, a chip on both ends that can communicate what voltage to provide.
Depends on if we stay long enough to make it stable. Eg: Kosovo would be a smoking crater and Russian puppet state with a big-ass pipeline and a bunch of dead Albanians if we hadn't stayed the course in Bosnia.
Like the econ crisis, there are no simple answers. There are bot nets people advertise as available for sending spam. There are opportunistic guys just looking to make a buck. There are mafia types looking to sell more sinister things and finance more sinister operations. They are all there and it is a huge problem.
The economy has far more effective (if a little bit more broad stroked) means of revenge. Especially in such a networked world, these people will hopefully have a hard time getting a job, and have been effectively removed from the system by their own deceit and incompetence (at least until it drops off their credit report).
People will always be stupid/desperate/gullible. The same "demand side" argument could be made for drugs/copyright violation (wow, what a can of worms). If you want to fight it, you have to do it as a whole: cut off both the supply and demand sides, and saying "if only they would just stop" is missing half the point.
The only difference between the aforementioned 3 issues is zeal of enforcement, and you should direct your resources to those who would ratchet up enforcement or encourage leniency in regards to these issues. IE: A significant majority of people don't want spam and choose to stamp it out (though right to send it might be a point of contention); our resources are bent to vilify enforcement and glorify drug use in pop culture, while simultaneously giving millions per year to enforcement agencies (talk about a schizophrenic country); similarly, a copyright czar was recently authorized as people see violation as a problem (not a very big one, and not as big as spam since it has taken THIS long to enact.
By swaying the opinion of those around you through persuasive talking/blogging/civil disobedience (see XKCD's latest entitled "Steal This Comic", you can change the nature of the fight from a purely demand side (arresting drug users or allowing song downloaders to be sued) to an effective approach.
Agreed. Congress bought into Reaganomics and used it as a political tool to bring home the bacon to the stupid (condo-buying) or poor (low-income) constituents. Turning a blind eye was just another favor.
I agree and add that asking "what caused the crisis" entails a semester or two course, just like when you ask "what caused the civil war". You can say "slavery" or you can say "short answer: slavery, long answer: state's rights." The media picks the former, schools (hopefully) pick the latter, and congress says "the other party".
Could this also be the case of the ratings being along too narrow a band? Everything was supposed to be good, but their ratings didn't have enough granularity.Could this be the source of belly-aching from within the ratings agency that people just didn't understand?
Like when I rate everything on my Netflix a 4 or 5, I get crap recommendations because there's basically no difference between what I don't like and what I like? The dry spell while I correct each recommendation and have to sit through movies like "Jesus Christ, Vamprie Hunter" feels like a the stock market crash.
I would rather say that catastrophic events are the bellwether for evolution: they make evolution matter, as changing environments highlight the differences in individuals.
What the scientist in TFA was saying is that there are fewer chances for those variations to really change us as a species: strip away older useless mutations (the protien modification that made us invulnerable to AIDS, but may have inhibited growth in our immune system in other ways). Combined with reduction of smaller selective effects by having us mate at random (ie: early in life, remaining monogamous), you've got evolution being a much smaller player in the course of humanity.
All in all, I think they're just playing with the Drake Equation of Evolution: this term isn't as big as we thought it was, that one reduces the overall effect as well, oh look, the influence of evolution over any one generation/family group is effectively zero now.
Slashdot Mirror
The youth vote was 18%, previous election was 17%. He didn't bring out the youth to vote any more than previous elections.
As opposed to a fair number of articles both glorifying and demonizing a single ethnic group that ignored the issues to make history in a Guiness Book of World Records type stunt. Woo hoo!!1 First Black President! Now lets see if we can get the most people ever assembled to eat as many hot dogs as possible!!1one!!
Obama's marketing is "here is a video of what I think,
now let my supporters belittle you instead of listening to their consequences."
Fixed the misleading part of the statement. Make no mistake, every conversation I've had about Obama has been responded to with, "and then he'll get us a tax cut, and a stimulus check." Propping up consumerism through bread and circuses will eventually lead to Rome burning. Enjoy the fiddle music, the awfully inspiring music.
A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square...
Traffic is modeled best as a fluid or gas in motion (I posted above, if a little less coherently). This type of equilibrium can be heard when your pipes creak in a large building as pressure equalizes.
This will probably help in the short term by recommending quicker routes OFF the interstate (get off one exit earlier, for example). Long-term benefits will only be see by cities using this data to shape traffic: time lights (valves in a fluid or gas model), add bus express lines and carpool incentives, etc.
It is, however, the ability to non-invasively gather data is the biggest boon from this program. Cities already spend thousands of dollars on traffic surveys (ever run over the double tubes on the road, seen someone at a stoplight with a clicker?), so this would (once widespread enough) save money for government.
That being said, the worry of this distributed computing project turning into a financial boon with no remuneration to the people who provide the data, (or worse, the data being exploited for control), is a big downside to adoption.
Traffic is traditionally modeled as a fluid, with all points assumed to be moving within a very small tolerance of some speed. When do you see someone NOT going within 10 of the speed limit who isn't an outlier? They are either parked on the road or blazing through traffic.
While recent research has suggested that a gas-based model might give better predictive results, you shouldn't need that kind of fine granularity to be accurate in the near-term.
It is also about providing the required voltage, too. I saw an article on it (/.? Sci Am? Discovery?) a few months back, but there is a company implementing a voltage regulation protocol: one adapter to go from AC to DC, one connector to plug into all devices which require power, a chip on both ends that can communicate what voltage to provide.
Depends on if we stay long enough to make it stable. Eg: Kosovo would be a smoking crater and Russian puppet state with a big-ass pipeline and a bunch of dead Albanians if we hadn't stayed the course in Bosnia.
I already said this was written by a LAWYER
That will be $500, please.
That explains why "Umbrella Corporation" is on your birth certificate...
Like the econ crisis, there are no simple answers. There are bot nets people advertise as available for sending spam. There are opportunistic guys just looking to make a buck. There are mafia types looking to sell more sinister things and finance more sinister operations. They are all there and it is a huge problem.
The economy has far more effective (if a little bit more broad stroked) means of revenge. Especially in such a networked world, these people will hopefully have a hard time getting a job, and have been effectively removed from the system by their own deceit and incompetence (at least until it drops off their credit report).
People will always be stupid/desperate/gullible. The same "demand side" argument could be made for drugs/copyright violation (wow, what a can of worms). If you want to fight it, you have to do it as a whole: cut off both the supply and demand sides, and saying "if only they would just stop" is missing half the point.
The only difference between the aforementioned 3 issues is zeal of enforcement, and you should direct your resources to those who would ratchet up enforcement or encourage leniency in regards to these issues. IE: A significant majority of people don't want spam and choose to stamp it out (though right to send it might be a point of contention); our resources are bent to vilify enforcement and glorify drug use in pop culture, while simultaneously giving millions per year to enforcement agencies (talk about a schizophrenic country); similarly, a copyright czar was recently authorized as people see violation as a problem (not a very big one, and not as big as spam since it has taken THIS long to enact.
By swaying the opinion of those around you through persuasive talking/blogging/civil disobedience (see XKCD's latest entitled "Steal This Comic", you can change the nature of the fight from a purely demand side (arresting drug users or allowing song downloaders to be sued) to an effective approach.
Agreed. Congress bought into Reaganomics and used it as a political tool to bring home the bacon to the stupid (condo-buying) or poor (low-income) constituents. Turning a blind eye was just another favor.
formal modeling can give you very powerful insights into causal mechanism[s]
I knew Tyra Banks was behind this! Oh...cAUsal...my bad...
I agree and add that asking "what caused the crisis" entails a semester or two course, just like when you ask "what caused the civil war". You can say "slavery" or you can say "short answer: slavery, long answer: state's rights." The media picks the former, schools (hopefully) pick the latter, and congress says "the other party".
Could this also be the case of the ratings being along too narrow a band? Everything was supposed to be good, but their ratings didn't have enough granularity.Could this be the source of belly-aching from within the ratings agency that people just didn't understand?
Like when I rate everything on my Netflix a 4 or 5, I get crap recommendations because there's basically no difference between what I don't like and what I like? The dry spell while I correct each recommendation and have to sit through movies like "Jesus Christ, Vamprie Hunter" feels like a the stock market crash.
Pretty-fying software use #53: Faking child porn!
What joker modded this insightful?
What the scientist in TFA was saying is that there are fewer chances for those variations to really change us as a species: strip away older useless mutations (the protien modification that made us invulnerable to AIDS, but may have inhibited growth in our immune system in other ways). Combined with reduction of smaller selective effects by having us mate at random (ie: early in life, remaining monogamous), you've got evolution being a much smaller player in the course of humanity.
All in all, I think they're just playing with the Drake Equation of Evolution: this term isn't as big as we thought it was, that one reduces the overall effect as well, oh look, the influence of evolution over any one generation/family group is effectively zero now.
your just jealous at our futuristic grammar
I can't say no to that cute little...AHHHHRGGGG!!!, OWWWWWRGGGGGG!!!! gurgle...gurgle...
/b/?
In a representative population of nudists, he'd only need 2,4415 people