How do you figure? You're suggesting that they feed a false camera image to the vehicles and trick their sensors into going off course? Or what exactly do you think the counter is to this? What "sort of electronic jamming tech" is going to fool the camera? If a vehicle loses contact with the one it's following, what do you think they have it set to do? Just drive around randomly in an area without air cover?
The lead vehicle is not a cargo truck, it is a vehicle specifically designed to take a bomb blast without damaging the meatbags inside and maybe without even preventing the vehicle from continuing.
Here, look at the all of injuries sustained by the crew of this Caiman after hitting an IED.
Since the enemy now know that they can kill one person
Why one person? What do you think, the convoy is headed by an un-armored golf cart driven by 1 person? Why can't it be lead by a tank? If they want to attack the tank, OK, good luck.
By the way, watch out for the drone providing air cover.
What patrol route? Did you read the same summary I did? Why would a military patrol consist of one vehicle with people in it followed by a bunch of vehicles with no one in them?
The thing I doubt the most is the claim that a device capable of lighting a city from 35,786km (22,236mi) away would have no effect on nocturnal animals.
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has opinions. Some people stick to their opinions regardless of any evidence contradicting them. Others are open to changing their opinions when presented with counter evidence. I like I think I'm in the latter group on most issues. Many people are in the former.
I'm just not a search engine engineer, that's not what I work on. I work on other problems, that's where my focus is. I don't particularly care to drop what I'm doing and focus on someone else's job in a volunteer role, but if those people want to present their solutions and data supporting them then maybe I'll take a look if I'm interested and have the time. I don't know why you seem opposed to that.
If you want to look at my posts in this thread I don't think you'll see anything suggesting that I'm some sort of authority on search engines, I'm just offering my opinion. Like you are, except I'm trying to stick to my opinion on the topic and you seem to want to offer your opinion on me.
That didn't happen. What did happen, and yes, what is a good example, is that a small group of people gamed the system to make it behave the way they wanted it to. It would not be correct to say that "the gay community" as a whole did that though. Like with any other group of people, it only takes a very small subset to make themselves vocal. In the case of Rick Santorum, he probably should have known to expect some kind of backlash when he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality and making un-American statements suggesting that people do not have the right to privacy concerning their sex lives. But it was a fairly small group that caused their own definition to be ranked at the top of searches for his last name, so yes that's a good example of a small group of people gaming the system. There's also a discussion to be had about whether that term, defined in 2003, is actually a valid term on its own now. Or, whether Dan Savage succeeded in "memorializing the scandal." Maybe that is in fact a valid definition at this point, so maybe it is actually correct for search engines to return that definition.
So, yeah, an interesting topic. If people are actually referring to the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex as "santorum", then wouldn't it be correct for a search engine to indicate that? A linguist would suggest this term has been used for 15 years. Dictionaries seem to add pop-culture terms in less time. Searching for that term yields results about Rick Santorum, the definition of his last name as it relates to anal sex, and articles about the term and definition itself, so that seems like the behavior one would expect.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not. When light from the sun reflects off a given object, that light has a certain wavelength. The fact that different people might interpret that light differently does not change the objective fact that the wavelength is measurable and constant. The wavelength of that light is an objective fact even if different eyes interpret the same wavelength as different colors.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
Now let's try to apply this to the topic at hand. If someone searches for "jews" on a search engine, would it be "more correct" to present them with a bunch of conspiracy theories about Jews, or would it be "more correct" to present them with a history of the Jewish people as we know it?
That answer does not require a debate on the nature of objective truth.
I think you've got me confused with someone else, I am not a search engine engineer. It's not my job to propose things like that. People smarter than us, or at least higher-paid, are working on that problem. I would imagine that it still requires a fair amount of human intervention and correction at this point. Microsoft's AI "Tay" is plenty of evidence regarding the problems of unleashing an AI to try to understand the internet.
Part of the problem is that there is a certain segment of the population, which is small but has an outsize impact because they know how things like this work, which will actively try to undermine the entire system for the lulz. It would be an easier problem to solve if there weren't people actively trying to mess it up.
On that video, the stage separation/escape tower jettison happens between 2:38-2:48, it looks like a lot of debris was around the vehicle then. The emergency/failure transmissions start at about 3:20.
It sounds like the escape tower was not used here. The American narrator explicitly said the escape tower had been jettisoned before any mention of the failure, it looks like the escape tower gets jettisoned when the first stage separates based on the video. Based on the weightless feeling, it sounds like it just didn't have the power for whatever reason to reach orbit and started descending, and the negative G-forces of the descent made them feel weightless. So it sounds like the capsule was already descending before they triggered the actual abort.
Once you hear the translator start talking about a booster failure the American narrator quiets down and you can hear the translator trying to keep up.
It is worth noting that both engines, when in their strictest filtering mode, outright refused to process the query in any manner - returning either no results (google) or no results and a suggestion to turn filtering off (bing).
This suggests a striking lack of content online concerning the habit that British women have of licking their songbirds. See, you can't trust search engines.
If I search for that phrase on Bing, the very first item at the top is from Wikihow on how to move from Windows to Linux in 8 steps (with pictures!). They even embed part of the list right in the first result. Step 1 is choose a distro. Step 2 is try the "live CD" versions first. Step 3 is about picking the correct applications to use. Step 4 is about backing up your data (maybe the steps aren't in the right order, but whatever). Etc.
The second result is the Windows To Linux Migration Guide from linux.com. The fourth result is 11 reasons why you should migrate from Windows to Linux. The next result is titled "Migrating to Linux From Windows Makes for Good Business".
I don't see a single anti-Linux result on the first page. So, if that list of what you posted is actually the results you see, then that says a lot more about your previous searches than anything about Bing. I don't use Bing at all, so I should have no history there.
If that list you posted is some example you just made up, then you're perfectly illustrating the problem that the article is about - uninformed crap posted online (and modded up!) masquerading as actual information which should not be on the top of the list.
I think "reality in the net" is what people are trying to avoid in favor of "reality in the real world", because the two are often not the same. Every uninformed opinion posted online is not somehow equivalent to truth of what actually happens in the world. The "vaccine debate" or climate change are perfect examples, where there are a very small number of vocal opinions which somehow get amplified and equated with the much larger number of fact-based studies. You end up with a picture that these issues are hotly debated when they're really not, they're really a lot more settled than the online discussion would lead someone to believe.
Yeah my phone is also polarized, I forget which orientation but if I have my glasses on then the screen won't be visible in one orientation. My phone is a OnePlus with an Optic AMOLED screen with Gorilla Glass covering it.
The details are really hard to come by. I guess I should have clicked on the Kickstarter link first, where they do say things like "The polarization is TAC 1.1, Cat 3, UV 400" and "IRL Glasses block LCD/LED screens through horizontal polarized optics".
Instead, like the last time Slashdot ran this story, I thought to myself "surely they didn't just discover polarization." So, instead of Kickstarter, I clicked on the link to "Casper screen-blocking film." Which, by the way, they literally refer to as "cloaking technology." The intro video describes the "inventor" as suddenly remembering something from childhood and "testing his theory about light." The text "polar" is nowhere to be found. The few seconds in the video devoted to how it actually works claims "physics, science, and a little of this *space shuttle launches*". This isn't for sunglasses, by the way, it's "architectural film" for putting on open glass conference rooms so that people walking by can't see the screens inside.
The 7-page Designtex Casper Cloaking Technology Process Overview PDF does not contain the text "polar." But under the section about "validating monitors", it talks about mounting your monitor either "regular," or rotated 90 degrees, but not rotated 45 degrees! They also show a layout diagram and point out that people viewing through glass that is angled 45 degrees to the screen, or people near the wall and viewing almost from the side, will still be able to partially see it.
So, yeah, it's polarization, and for some unknown reason, as if polarization is not some widely-known thing, the design company goes to pretty far lengths to not use the word "polarization."
Here's the list they specifically say it won't "cloak":
Microsoft Surface Hubs Cisco Spark Board Direct LED displays Passive 3D displays OLED displays Plasma displays CRT monitors and displays Prysm Laser Phosphorous Displays (LPDs) Smart Kapp white boards Traditional white boards Projection devices
It will "cloak":
Most LED displays 40” and larger Telepresence and media:scape units Google Jamboard
And it may "cloak":
Small computer monitors Laptop computers Notebook computers Touchscreen computers and kiosk displays Displays mounted behind glass
I don't know if it's necessarily trying to conflate wind with fossil fuels, it's just looking at the impact that 100% wind power would have. It's pretty explicit that the effects are localized only to where the generators are, and that this is only short-term, over a longer term wind is obviously much cooler than any burning.
Anyway, let's go ahead and scratch "100% wind power" off the list we don't have, and assume that some combination of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc is probably the way to go.
Obviously, both wind and hydro are moving a certain amount of energy from one place to another, so sure there's going to be an effect without the energy that would have been there. Solar does also to a certain extent, but it seems like solar would end up having a cooling instead of warming effect.
OK, let's address the strawman head-on then. Why are you suggesting that, in the event of secession, there would not be a defense budget? While Costa Rica proves it can be done, it's obviously not an option for any major economy or anyone with significant natural resources. The person you responded to didn't suggest anything like that. So, why do you keep going back to that? You want to knock that argument down, which no one made, and therefore you win the debate?
For that matter, why are you hung up on secession at all? Again, the person you responded to did not suggest it. Do you have any substance to add to anything here, or do you just want to set up and knock down your own strawmen, while imaging that everyone you hate (you can read that as "liberals", "libtards", however you like to label "the other" who disagrees with you and, therefore, hates the United States) agrees with your strawman arguments and, therefore, you win.
I'm not even going to address the "Californians who work for the government are the property of the United States" argument, which I'm sure every conservative feels exactly the same about (I hear that conservatives love the idea of "big government"). Let's skip right over that and go straight to the strawmen.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you figure? You're suggesting that they feed a false camera image to the vehicles and trick their sensors into going off course? Or what exactly do you think the counter is to this? What "sort of electronic jamming tech" is going to fool the camera? If a vehicle loses contact with the one it's following, what do you think they have it set to do? Just drive around randomly in an area without air cover?
The lead vehicle is not a cargo truck, it is a vehicle specifically designed to take a bomb blast without damaging the meatbags inside and maybe without even preventing the vehicle from continuing.
Here, look at the all of injuries sustained by the crew of this Caiman after hitting an IED.
Right, because the entire national treasure is in that supply convoy.
Since the enemy now know that they can kill one person
Why one person? What do you think, the convoy is headed by an un-armored golf cart driven by 1 person? Why can't it be lead by a tank? If they want to attack the tank, OK, good luck.
By the way, watch out for the drone providing air cover.
So the vehicle comes back from its patrol route
What patrol route? Did you read the same summary I did? Why would a military patrol consist of one vehicle with people in it followed by a bunch of vehicles with no one in them?
The thing I doubt the most is the claim that a device capable of lighting a city from 35,786km (22,236mi) away would have no effect on nocturnal animals.
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has opinions. Some people stick to their opinions regardless of any evidence contradicting them. Others are open to changing their opinions when presented with counter evidence. I like I think I'm in the latter group on most issues. Many people are in the former.
I'm just not a search engine engineer, that's not what I work on. I work on other problems, that's where my focus is. I don't particularly care to drop what I'm doing and focus on someone else's job in a volunteer role, but if those people want to present their solutions and data supporting them then maybe I'll take a look if I'm interested and have the time. I don't know why you seem opposed to that.
If you want to look at my posts in this thread I don't think you'll see anything suggesting that I'm some sort of authority on search engines, I'm just offering my opinion. Like you are, except I'm trying to stick to my opinion on the topic and you seem to want to offer your opinion on me.
That didn't happen. What did happen, and yes, what is a good example, is that a small group of people gamed the system to make it behave the way they wanted it to. It would not be correct to say that "the gay community" as a whole did that though. Like with any other group of people, it only takes a very small subset to make themselves vocal. In the case of Rick Santorum, he probably should have known to expect some kind of backlash when he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality and making un-American statements suggesting that people do not have the right to privacy concerning their sex lives. But it was a fairly small group that caused their own definition to be ranked at the top of searches for his last name, so yes that's a good example of a small group of people gaming the system. There's also a discussion to be had about whether that term, defined in 2003, is actually a valid term on its own now. Or, whether Dan Savage succeeded in "memorializing the scandal." Maybe that is in fact a valid definition at this point, so maybe it is actually correct for search engines to return that definition.
So, yeah, an interesting topic. If people are actually referring to the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex as "santorum", then wouldn't it be correct for a search engine to indicate that? A linguist would suggest this term has been used for 15 years. Dictionaries seem to add pop-culture terms in less time. Searching for that term yields results about Rick Santorum, the definition of his last name as it relates to anal sex, and articles about the term and definition itself, so that seems like the behavior one would expect.
The problem is that reality is very subjective.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not. When light from the sun reflects off a given object, that light has a certain wavelength. The fact that different people might interpret that light differently does not change the objective fact that the wavelength is measurable and constant. The wavelength of that light is an objective fact even if different eyes interpret the same wavelength as different colors.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
Now let's try to apply this to the topic at hand. If someone searches for "jews" on a search engine, would it be "more correct" to present them with a bunch of conspiracy theories about Jews, or would it be "more correct" to present them with a history of the Jewish people as we know it?
That answer does not require a debate on the nature of objective truth.
If they have reasonable data to support that then of course I'm willing to change my mind.
And how do you propose to do that?
I think you've got me confused with someone else, I am not a search engine engineer. It's not my job to propose things like that. People smarter than us, or at least higher-paid, are working on that problem. I would imagine that it still requires a fair amount of human intervention and correction at this point. Microsoft's AI "Tay" is plenty of evidence regarding the problems of unleashing an AI to try to understand the internet.
Part of the problem is that there is a certain segment of the population, which is small but has an outsize impact because they know how things like this work, which will actively try to undermine the entire system for the lulz. It would be an easier problem to solve if there weren't people actively trying to mess it up.
I should have stated that more accurately.
The Ghoul Rule: as an online discussion grows longer, the probability that someone will place blame on Hillary Clinton approaches 1.
We need a new law for when someone interjects into a discussion that this is all Hillary's fault.
We could call it the Ghoul Rule.
This discussion has been ghouled. Actually you Godwinned it at the same time, that's like a two-fer. Pretty impressive.
It almost seems like the second stage never ignited.
On that video, the stage separation/escape tower jettison happens between 2:38-2:48, it looks like a lot of debris was around the vehicle then. The emergency/failure transmissions start at about 3:20.
It sounds like the escape tower was not used here. The American narrator explicitly said the escape tower had been jettisoned before any mention of the failure, it looks like the escape tower gets jettisoned when the first stage separates based on the video. Based on the weightless feeling, it sounds like it just didn't have the power for whatever reason to reach orbit and started descending, and the negative G-forces of the descent made them feel weightless. So it sounds like the capsule was already descending before they triggered the actual abort.
There's a video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Once you hear the translator start talking about a booster failure the American narrator quiets down and you can hear the translator trying to keep up.
It is worth noting that both engines, when in their strictest filtering mode, outright refused to process the query in any manner - returning either no results (google) or no results and a suggestion to turn filtering off (bing).
This suggests a striking lack of content online concerning the habit that British women have of licking their songbirds. See, you can't trust search engines.
If I search for that phrase on Bing, the very first item at the top is from Wikihow on how to move from Windows to Linux in 8 steps (with pictures!). They even embed part of the list right in the first result. Step 1 is choose a distro. Step 2 is try the "live CD" versions first. Step 3 is about picking the correct applications to use. Step 4 is about backing up your data (maybe the steps aren't in the right order, but whatever). Etc.
The second result is the Windows To Linux Migration Guide from linux.com. The fourth result is 11 reasons why you should migrate from Windows to Linux. The next result is titled "Migrating to Linux From Windows Makes for Good Business".
I don't see a single anti-Linux result on the first page. So, if that list of what you posted is actually the results you see, then that says a lot more about your previous searches than anything about Bing. I don't use Bing at all, so I should have no history there.
If that list you posted is some example you just made up, then you're perfectly illustrating the problem that the article is about - uninformed crap posted online (and modded up!) masquerading as actual information which should not be on the top of the list.
a true picture of reality in the net.
I think "reality in the net" is what people are trying to avoid in favor of "reality in the real world", because the two are often not the same. Every uninformed opinion posted online is not somehow equivalent to truth of what actually happens in the world. The "vaccine debate" or climate change are perfect examples, where there are a very small number of vocal opinions which somehow get amplified and equated with the much larger number of fact-based studies. You end up with a picture that these issues are hotly debated when they're really not, they're really a lot more settled than the online discussion would lead someone to believe.
Yeah my phone is also polarized, I forget which orientation but if I have my glasses on then the screen won't be visible in one orientation. My phone is a OnePlus with an Optic AMOLED screen with Gorilla Glass covering it.
The details are really hard to come by. I guess I should have clicked on the Kickstarter link first, where they do say things like "The polarization is TAC 1.1, Cat 3, UV 400" and "IRL Glasses block LCD/LED screens through horizontal polarized optics".
Instead, like the last time Slashdot ran this story, I thought to myself "surely they didn't just discover polarization." So, instead of Kickstarter, I clicked on the link to "Casper screen-blocking film." Which, by the way, they literally refer to as "cloaking technology." The intro video describes the "inventor" as suddenly remembering something from childhood and "testing his theory about light." The text "polar" is nowhere to be found. The few seconds in the video devoted to how it actually works claims "physics, science, and a little of this *space shuttle launches*". This isn't for sunglasses, by the way, it's "architectural film" for putting on open glass conference rooms so that people walking by can't see the screens inside.
The 7-page Designtex Casper Cloaking Technology Process Overview PDF does not contain the text "polar." But under the section about "validating monitors", it talks about mounting your monitor either "regular," or rotated 90 degrees, but not rotated 45 degrees! They also show a layout diagram and point out that people viewing through glass that is angled 45 degrees to the screen, or people near the wall and viewing almost from the side, will still be able to partially see it.
So, yeah, it's polarization, and for some unknown reason, as if polarization is not some widely-known thing, the design company goes to pretty far lengths to not use the word "polarization."
Here's the list they specifically say it won't "cloak":
Microsoft Surface Hubs
Cisco Spark Board
Direct LED displays
Passive 3D displays
OLED displays
Plasma displays
CRT monitors and displays
Prysm Laser Phosphorous
Displays (LPDs)
Smart Kapp white boards
Traditional white boards
Projection devices
It will "cloak":
Most LED displays 40” and
larger
Telepresence and media:scape
units
Google Jamboard
And it may "cloak":
Small computer monitors
Laptop computers
Notebook computers
Touchscreen computers and
kiosk displays
Displays mounted behind glass
I don't know if it's necessarily trying to conflate wind with fossil fuels, it's just looking at the impact that 100% wind power would have. It's pretty explicit that the effects are localized only to where the generators are, and that this is only short-term, over a longer term wind is obviously much cooler than any burning.
Anyway, let's go ahead and scratch "100% wind power" off the list we don't have, and assume that some combination of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc is probably the way to go.
Obviously, both wind and hydro are moving a certain amount of energy from one place to another, so sure there's going to be an effect without the energy that would have been there. Solar does also to a certain extent, but it seems like solar would end up having a cooling instead of warming effect.
I don't see how that response addresses any of my questions. You're just trolling, so I'll leave you to it.
OK, let's address the strawman head-on then. Why are you suggesting that, in the event of secession, there would not be a defense budget? While Costa Rica proves it can be done, it's obviously not an option for any major economy or anyone with significant natural resources. The person you responded to didn't suggest anything like that. So, why do you keep going back to that? You want to knock that argument down, which no one made, and therefore you win the debate?
For that matter, why are you hung up on secession at all? Again, the person you responded to did not suggest it. Do you have any substance to add to anything here, or do you just want to set up and knock down your own strawmen, while imaging that everyone you hate (you can read that as "liberals", "libtards", however you like to label "the other" who disagrees with you and, therefore, hates the United States) agrees with your strawman arguments and, therefore, you win.
I'm not even going to address the "Californians who work for the government are the property of the United States" argument, which I'm sure every conservative feels exactly the same about (I hear that conservatives love the idea of "big government"). Let's skip right over that and go straight to the strawmen.
What exactly do you think would happen, California decides to secede so the US destroys Edwards Air Force Base?
Here's the thing about secession - they would claim it's no longer the property of the DoD. That's kind of the whole thing about secession.