"Facebook Has Information That Can Infer If You're Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican" Researchers, who crunch data found on Facebook, can infer traits to an accuracy of as much as 88% in one instance.
How does using UTC solve the problem of people having lunch at different times of the day? Sorry but no matter what clock system one uses that would be a problem. It is not a point toward either system when both systems have the same problem.
always means the previous UTC day.
You missed the point entirely.If the calendar day changed during my work day, yesterday could be in my current work day. That would mean that a night may or may not have passed between today and yesterday. With solar time, one says "I sent that package overnight delivery yesterday" it should be there by now. If yesterday, under UTC, was an hour ago then that would not be the case. To most people tomorrow would be the next work day and not later in this work day.
It is only the transition that is difficult, not living with it.
For so little benefit and many disadvantages there is no reason to go through the difficult transition.
The point is that more and more, due to globalisation, humans work is less and less based on their local sun and more and more in the arbitrary clock their customers happen to use, so let's make be at least the same arbitrary clock.
That is the problem with terms like "more and more". Currently very few people deal with globalization; by your own numbers less than 1%. Sure 1% is more than.5% but it is far from justification for changing the clock for the other 99%. When over 50% of the population have to deal with multiple time zones on a significant basis then it may be time but right now it is not.
The issue with DST occurs near the winter solstice. At that time of the year sunrise is around 9AM here. That would mean that most commutes and children going to school would occur in the dark. That is not a good thing. Also solar noon and clock noon would be off by another hour.
Tell me more about this as that will be at 1355 EDT for me. (Indiana, look it up)
I never said the they were perfectly in sync, So you would eat a couple of hours early. That is not a big deal. Without time zones solar noon would be 900 GMT. With EST, do away with daylight savings, it would only be off by an hour.
The biggest issue is that people use terms like noon, afternoon, morning, evening, today, yesterday, tomorrow, etc which loosely translate between solar and clock time. When solar and clock time are far out of sync they become meaningless. Please not that I say loosely as definitions differ person to person. For example, to me morning is before 0900. and after 0300. With UTC morning would be between 1900 one day and 0100 the next day. That would make the date change somewhere late morning. Does yesterday mean before the previous sunset or does that mean during the previous calendar day.Say it was 0100 GMT where I live. Yesterday could mean an hour ago, based on calender day, or over 12 hours based on solar days.
There is a huge difference between solar noon and clock noon be off by 120 minutes and solar noon and clock noon be off by 720 minutes. Two hours is close enough while 12 hours is not close at all. Where I live solar noon would be 8 hours different from UTC while it would only be at most 1.5 hours off with time zones. Without time zones one would have to signify if the term one is using are solar based or clock based. That just complicates things for no good result.
For almost all humans for most of the year clock noon is approximately when the sun is highest in the sky and dates change when it is dark. Having dates change at significantly different times during the day in different parts of the world is just has no redeeming value. If you can find one I would love to hear it.
Take a look at figure 1 from this article. The article you quote concentrates on one type of accident. Taking all types of accidents together show fewer deaths.
How about just after they get to work or just before they go home from work? Basically any time relative to their work there would need to be translations.
Travelers *are* confused anyway. It's called jet lag, you know
Sleepiness is called jet lag. It also only happens with a significant change in time zones. Lunch is at 1400 here, At the next stop lunch is at 1600. At the next stop it is at 2200. Even though every lunch was at solar noon.
For the most part I said that 99% of the people have to deal 99% of the time with people in their very same time zone.
Since 99% is over 90% and the same time zone is within 2 time zones you have not stated anything significantly different. You still haven't explained why, to use your figures, 99% of the people need to scrap their solar referenced clock to make things simpler for the remaining 1%.
The worst part of the confusion is that the date would change while one is awake. For millennia a day has been define as the period from dawn till dusk. There would be two dates in one sunny period. For example, when someone says they will do something on during the day on Tuesday that means between the dawn of Tuesday and dusk on Tuesday. With UTC it could be during either of the two light periods.
The point is that humans work based on the sun and not an arbitrary clock. The use of time zones bring both of those clocks as close together as possible.
The Switch is definitely killing people pointlessly (Increased heart attacks and fatal accidents).
The spring forward causes more deaths but the fall back causes fewer deaths. Taken as a whole there is no net difference in deaths due to time change.
No matter how you fiddle with it, most people are going to commute in the dark in the morning, or the evening, or BOTH.
To me it is more important to go to work in the light as I don't do mornings well. I would rather start my commute 1 hour before sunrise than two. You also do not factor in the issue of school children and the difference between solar noon and clock noon.
UTC has few advantages and significant disadvantages. People in different parts of the globe would still do things based on the sun rather than the time. People will still want lunch around when the sun is highest in the sky.
Say one wanted to call people halfway around the world just after they had lunch; With time zones one would use the difference in timezones to translate their 1PM to local time. Without time zones one would have to figure out when the sun was highest in his area and add an hour. The former would be easier for me.
The other issue is that over 90% of the world's population deal with people who are within plus or minus one time zone of them. Making their lives more difficult is not an advantage. In most people's minds 1200hrs is when the sun is about the highest in the sky. It would be very confusing for me if noon was 0400hrs. Travelers would also be confused as, depending on where they are in the world, solar noon could be any hour.
As for the farmers -- the people whom this was originally meant to benefit
Farmers ignore daylight saving time as they have to deal with animals who are governed by the sun and not a clock. Daylight saving time was instituted so there would be more sunlight in the evening and therefore lower resource use. Read a bit of,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History">history. Notice there is no mention of farmers as a reason for DST.
So people do not have to commute to work in the dark. Where I live sunrise would be as late as 9:05AM on December. To be at work at 8:30AM would place my commute in the dark. Same thing would happen to children going to school. Having kids wait on the side of the road in the dark for a bus is not a good idea.
Where I live, just north of the American border, sunrise could be as late as 9:05AM if daylight savings time was in effect year round. That would mean that most people would be commuting in the dark and children would be walking to school in the dim light of predawn. Both of those will increase accidents and deaths. Sunrise in San Diego would be 7:50AM. It would also cause the sun to be highest in the sky around 1PM instead of noon. One reason it is called standard time is that noon is approximately when the sun is the highest. If we are going to stop the switch I say we stay with standard time.
I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
Where in that does it say anything about not using drones on the signature of the President?
Here is the response from the Attorney General;
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. responded to Paul’s inquiry Monday, saying the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.
Notice how Paul is not differentiating death orders and in progress attacks.
Wow, did someone have a bad day or is this what passes for polite debate where you come from. Oh, I just noticed you are a self confessed coward. As in all comments I will consider the writer; in this case an anonymous coward. If you want to be taken seriously use your name.
The problem with saying "no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil" is that there are scenarios where a drone strike may be useful. If they are banned drones can never be used.
For example, say someone steals a tank or armours a bulldozer? Both have happened. Wouldn't if be great if they could be stopped by one missile? Perhaps a well defended radical group who have taken hostages?
This all goes back to "drone paranoia" and the false assumption that drones are not human controlled. We have no problems with helicopter surveillance but drone surveillance is bad. There is no outcry that the President has not outlawed jets firing on US citizens on US soil but if drones do it it is bad. When one outlaws the use of a tool a valid use will eventually come up and we will wish we had not banned it.
If by functional one means able to send nerve impulses to the brain then maybe. If by functional you mean sending nerve impulses to the brain that can be resolved into pictures similar to the eyes in the head has not been proven. They throw about terms like "statistically significant" yet this the measurements of performance are taken by subjective humans. Humans have a tendency to see what they want to see. This experiment has not been replicated and is therefore suspect.
He started practice at the Intellectual Property Bar in 1967. From 1976 to 1981 he was the Junior Counsel for the Comptroller of Patents and for all Government departments in intellectual property.
Perhaps working in IP for 14 years, five of which as a IP council for the government, might make him an expert. Check out his books, articles and lectures. Yeah, this judge is an expert. UCL seems to think he is an expert too.
You might want to at least put his name into Google before making statements.
Perhaps the judge's expertise is due to the fact that he spent months listening to both sides of the matter, sifting through conflicting evidence and judging the validity of the positions to come up with an unbiased conclusion. There would be no better expert on the case than the judge that heard it. He would be the best person to explain why he made the decision that he did and be the best one to convince others of his logic. It is not necessarily a judge giving a decision so he can get a future job. This is another instance of appearance of conflict being more important that actual conflict.
Casting doubt is not an issue. If another judge reviewed the ruling and found fault then there would be an issue. Every ruling should be able to be reviewed at any time without the review causing issues. The whole "There is a review there must be something wrong" is stupid. Wait for the review to be over and then make a judgement. Many reviews are done to remove appearances of conflict and prove that no conflict existed.
Drones have two huge issues. communications and situational awareness. The communications can be jammed and the drone is useless. The pilot on the ground has no real feedback on what the aircraft is doing. He has a very restricted field of vision and a very slow means of changing that view. Even if we can remotely operate an f-35 a local pilot will beat a remote pilot every time. Until we are comfortable with autonomous drones they will remain issues.
And as Stalin is reputed to have said "quantity has a quality all of its own."
True but the specifications must be at least close. Take a look at the Iraq war. Hundreds of Iraqi tanks were taken out by Coalition tanks with very few losses. To create a drone with performance similar to an F-35 one would be building an F-35 and it would cost the same if not more. Comparing the cost of a Reaper with the cost of an f-35 is like comparing the cost of a P-51 to the cost of an F-16.
So in summary, we may get drones as capable as the f-35 but they will cost the same, be available in similar numbers and have to be autonomous to be effective.
I could have sworn that there were many posts on this site about the evils of drones, how they invade privacy, how they could be armed and shoot speeders, how they should be banned from all airspace. It is interesting that when Charlottesville, Virginia does it it's "[a]bout bloody time" but when Texas does it it is bowing to corporations. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
One could just "swipe" the desired accessory from someone else's desk. That would be much more difficult to track.
"Facebook Has Information That Can Infer If You're Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican"
Researchers, who crunch data found on Facebook, can infer traits to an accuracy of as much as 88% in one instance.
How does using UTC solve the problem of people having lunch at different times of the day? Sorry but no matter what clock system one uses that would be a problem. It is not a point toward either system when both systems have the same problem.
always means the previous UTC day.
You missed the point entirely.If the calendar day changed during my work day, yesterday could be in my current work day. That would mean that a night may or may not have passed between today and yesterday. With solar time, one says "I sent that package overnight delivery yesterday" it should be there by now. If yesterday, under UTC, was an hour ago then that would not be the case. To most people tomorrow would be the next work day and not later in this work day.
It is only the transition that is difficult, not living with it.
For so little benefit and many disadvantages there is no reason to go through the difficult transition.
The point is that more and more, due to globalisation, humans work is less and less based on their local sun and more and more in the arbitrary clock their customers happen to use, so let's make be at least the same arbitrary clock.
That is the problem with terms like "more and more". Currently very few people deal with globalization; by your own numbers less than 1%. Sure 1% is more than .5% but it is far from justification for changing the clock for the other 99%. When over 50% of the population have to deal with multiple time zones on a significant basis then it may be time but right now it is not.
The issue with DST occurs near the winter solstice. At that time of the year sunrise is around 9AM here. That would mean that most commutes and children going to school would occur in the dark. That is not a good thing. Also solar noon and clock noon would be off by another hour.
Tell me more about this as that will be at 1355 EDT for me. (Indiana, look it up)
I never said the they were perfectly in sync, So you would eat a couple of hours early. That is not a big deal. Without time zones solar noon would be 900 GMT. With EST, do away with daylight savings, it would only be off by an hour.
The biggest issue is that people use terms like noon, afternoon, morning, evening, today, yesterday, tomorrow, etc which loosely translate between solar and clock time. When solar and clock time are far out of sync they become meaningless. Please not that I say loosely as definitions differ person to person. For example, to me morning is before 0900. and after 0300. With UTC morning would be between 1900 one day and 0100 the next day. That would make the date change somewhere late morning. Does yesterday mean before the previous sunset or does that mean during the previous calendar day.Say it was 0100 GMT where I live. Yesterday could mean an hour ago, based on calender day, or over 12 hours based on solar days.
There is a huge difference between solar noon and clock noon be off by 120 minutes and solar noon and clock noon be off by 720 minutes. Two hours is close enough while 12 hours is not close at all. Where I live solar noon would be 8 hours different from UTC while it would only be at most 1.5 hours off with time zones. Without time zones one would have to signify if the term one is using are solar based or clock based. That just complicates things for no good result.
For almost all humans for most of the year clock noon is approximately when the sun is highest in the sky and dates change when it is dark. Having dates change at significantly different times during the day in different parts of the world is just has no redeeming value. If you can find one I would love to hear it.
Take a look at figure 1 from this article. The article you quote concentrates on one type of accident. Taking all types of accidents together show fewer deaths.
Sorry, you'll need to find a different argument.
How about just after they get to work or just before they go home from work? Basically any time relative to their work there would need to be translations.
Travelers *are* confused anyway. It's called jet lag, you know
Sleepiness is called jet lag. It also only happens with a significant change in time zones. Lunch is at 1400 here, At the next stop lunch is at 1600. At the next stop it is at 2200. Even though every lunch was at solar noon.
For the most part I said that 99% of the people have to deal 99% of the time with people in their very same time zone.
Since 99% is over 90% and the same time zone is within 2 time zones you have not stated anything significantly different. You still haven't explained why, to use your figures, 99% of the people need to scrap their solar referenced clock to make things simpler for the remaining 1%.
The worst part of the confusion is that the date would change while one is awake. For millennia a day has been define as the period from dawn till dusk. There would be two dates in one sunny period. For example, when someone says they will do something on during the day on Tuesday that means between the dawn of Tuesday and dusk on Tuesday. With UTC it could be during either of the two light periods.
The point is that humans work based on the sun and not an arbitrary clock. The use of time zones bring both of those clocks as close together as possible.
The Switch is definitely killing people pointlessly (Increased heart attacks and fatal accidents).
The spring forward causes more deaths but the fall back causes fewer deaths. Taken as a whole there is no net difference in deaths due to time change.
No matter how you fiddle with it, most people are going to commute in the dark in the morning, or the evening, or BOTH.
To me it is more important to go to work in the light as I don't do mornings well. I would rather start my commute 1 hour before sunrise than two. You also do not factor in the issue of school children and the difference between solar noon and clock noon.
UTC has few advantages and significant disadvantages. People in different parts of the globe would still do things based on the sun rather than the time. People will still want lunch around when the sun is highest in the sky.
Say one wanted to call people halfway around the world just after they had lunch;
With time zones one would use the difference in timezones to translate their 1PM to local time.
Without time zones one would have to figure out when the sun was highest in his area and add an hour.
The former would be easier for me.
The other issue is that over 90% of the world's population deal with people who are within plus or minus one time zone of them. Making their lives more difficult is not an advantage. In most people's minds 1200hrs is when the sun is about the highest in the sky. It would be very confusing for me if noon was 0400hrs. Travelers would also be confused as, depending on where they are in the world, solar noon could be any hour.
As for the farmers -- the people whom this was originally meant to benefit
Farmers ignore daylight saving time as they have to deal with animals who are governed by the sun and not a clock. Daylight saving time was instituted so there would be more sunlight in the evening and therefore lower resource use. Read a bit of ,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History">history. Notice there is no mention of farmers as a reason for DST.
So people do not have to commute to work in the dark. Where I live sunrise would be as late as 9:05AM on December. To be at work at 8:30AM would place my commute in the dark. Same thing would happen to children going to school. Having kids wait on the side of the road in the dark for a bus is not a good idea.
Where I live, just north of the American border, sunrise could be as late as 9:05AM if daylight savings time was in effect year round. That would mean that most people would be commuting in the dark and children would be walking to school in the dim light of predawn. Both of those will increase accidents and deaths. Sunrise in San Diego would be 7:50AM. It would also cause the sun to be highest in the sky around 1PM instead of noon. One reason it is called standard time is that noon is approximately when the sun is the highest. If we are going to stop the switch I say we stay with standard time.
intranet != internet
FTFY
I was hoping that too but the following quote seems to indicate there is some access from the ground.
If there is a problem with one of the engines we will know before it lands to make sure that we have the parts there.
I just hope they can only see information and have no control from the ground.
Here is "Paul's" main statement:
I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
Where in that does it say anything about not using drones on the signature of the President?
Here is the response from the Attorney General;
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. responded to Paul’s inquiry Monday, saying the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.
Notice how Paul is not differentiating death orders and in progress attacks.
We use snipers on ERT squads and they shoot people usually killing them. That is not much different from a hellfire carefully placed.
Wow, did someone have a bad day or is this what passes for polite debate where you come from. Oh, I just noticed you are a self confessed coward. As in all comments I will consider the writer; in this case an anonymous coward. If you want to be taken seriously use your name.
The problem with saying "no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil" is that there are scenarios where a drone strike may be useful. If they are banned drones can never be used.
For example, say someone steals a tank or armours a bulldozer? Both have happened. Wouldn't if be great if they could be stopped by one missile? Perhaps a well defended radical group who have taken hostages?
This all goes back to "drone paranoia" and the false assumption that drones are not human controlled. We have no problems with helicopter surveillance but drone surveillance is bad. There is no outcry that the President has not outlawed jets firing on US citizens on US soil but if drones do it it is bad. When one outlaws the use of a tool a valid use will eventually come up and we will wish we had not banned it.
If by functional one means able to send nerve impulses to the brain then maybe. If by functional you mean sending nerve impulses to the brain that can be resolved into pictures similar to the eyes in the head has not been proven. They throw about terms like "statistically significant" yet this the measurements of performance are taken by subjective humans. Humans have a tendency to see what they want to see. This experiment has not been replicated and is therefore suspect.
His only expertise is as the judge of a case then the court transcripts are the entirety of the evidence.
According to this article:
He started practice at the Intellectual Property Bar in 1967. From 1976 to 1981 he was the Junior Counsel for the Comptroller of Patents and for all Government departments in intellectual property.
Perhaps working in IP for 14 years, five of which as a IP council for the government, might make him an expert. Check out his books, articles and lectures. Yeah, this judge is an expert. UCL seems to think he is an expert too.
You might want to at least put his name into Google before making statements.
It is possible but people need not jump to that conclusion without evidence.
Perhaps the judge's expertise is due to the fact that he spent months listening to both sides of the matter, sifting through conflicting evidence and judging the validity of the positions to come up with an unbiased conclusion. There would be no better expert on the case than the judge that heard it. He would be the best person to explain why he made the decision that he did and be the best one to convince others of his logic. It is not necessarily a judge giving a decision so he can get a future job. This is another instance of appearance of conflict being more important that actual conflict.
Casting doubt is not an issue. If another judge reviewed the ruling and found fault then there would be an issue. Every ruling should be able to be reviewed at any time without the review causing issues. The whole "There is a review there must be something wrong" is stupid. Wait for the review to be over and then make a judgement. Many reviews are done to remove appearances of conflict and prove that no conflict existed.
Drones have two huge issues. communications and situational awareness. The communications can be jammed and the drone is useless. The pilot on the ground has no real feedback on what the aircraft is doing. He has a very restricted field of vision and a very slow means of changing that view. Even if we can remotely operate an f-35 a local pilot will beat a remote pilot every time. Until we are comfortable with autonomous drones they will remain issues.
And as Stalin is reputed to have said "quantity has a quality all of its own."
True but the specifications must be at least close. Take a look at the Iraq war. Hundreds of Iraqi tanks were taken out by Coalition tanks with very few losses. To create a drone with performance similar to an F-35 one would be building an F-35 and it would cost the same if not more. Comparing the cost of a Reaper with the cost of an f-35 is like comparing the cost of a P-51 to the cost of an F-16.
So in summary, we may get drones as capable as the f-35 but they will cost the same, be available in similar numbers and have to be autonomous to be effective.
I could have sworn that there were many posts on this site about the evils of drones, how they invade privacy, how they could be armed and shoot speeders, how they should be banned from all airspace. It is interesting that when Charlottesville, Virginia does it it's "[a]bout bloody time" but when Texas does it it is bowing to corporations. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.