Yes. GPS has low reliability and is controlled by a lunatic. By having an alternative, high-precision, system that actually works and is not controlled by a lunatic, you have what's called a benefit.
Internet Exploder never followed standards. You need horrible hacks to simulate correct behaviour. That's why other browser vendors hated it. It was an attempt to embrace, extend and extinguish the entire web.
1. Microsoft can't afford South Korea to shut down.
2. Microsoft has been subject to multiple antitrust trials regarding Internet Explorer, in both the U.S. and EU. Refusal to comply or learn and building Edge into the OS shows wilful negligence.
Not without time travel and wire cutters. Microsoft built I.E. into their operating systems. Need a specific Microsoft OS? You use the web browser that is supplied, no matter what else you run.
Microsoft were told NOT to do this in 1995. They chose to compromise all subsequent computers instead. There is NOTHING anyone can do about it, save break up Microsoft.
Iron Maiden capitalizes heavily on word of mouth advertising through reasonable copying. It's not keen on abuse of that, word is they send Eddie to sort out miscreants, but it's absolutely fine with fans doing all the promotional work for them.
That's a decent balance and seems entirely justified by this report, even though it's a different market. Same effect applies.
Why should physics have to be different. One side of the moon is silicates, one side is igneous. One side is partly sheltered from incoming meteorites, the other side isn't.
When things don't make sense, first check to see if what you think is sense actually is.
The Van Allen belts aren't a problem. NASA has never said otherwise. You say blue screen, I say prove it. Why should hair wave? Can you list the forces acting upon it?
The universe is not accountable for your lack of knowledge. If you don't understand, learn.
The 1990s. It had a few oddballs, but I liked the site back then. People were generally NICE. Friendly. Supportive.
We didn't need registration for a long time, people could be trusted to enter their own username. I only registered when it became mandatory, or I would have had a lower UID.
When "top secret" Scientology texts were published on Slashdot, almost all of us defended the poster's right to do so. There was no trolling or shaming, no modding out of sight because some power user didn't like it, no mass army of sock puppets drowning the discussion.
People from the NSA were offering interviews with Slashdot, such was the credibility of the site. They don't do that for just anyone.
Katz was getting interviews with a whole bunch of other folk in government, because Slashdot mattered and people here listened.
When I talked to CmdrTaco, readership was running at 100,000 a day, more than many national newspapers.
In those days, trolls were the ones who were silenced and conspiracy nutters were left out.
I think Perenz and I are the only two left of that generation.
The BBC said that about the Doctor Who episodes they destroyed. Those occasionally turn up, unless you're suggesting they raised Stanley Kubrick and William Hartnell from their graves to recreate them.
Misplaced film stock happens. Particularly when - I suspect - one engineer decided to stash a copy in a spare room.
I don't trust neonicotinoids because scientists were suppressed by corporations. Call me old-fashioned but I don't trust ignorance and I don't trust those who promote it. The experts were abused, trolled and hounded. That doesn't tell me the experts were right, but it sure as hell gives me cause for concern about the corporations. Particularly as the corporations prefer ignorance, trade secrets and suppression of data.
If we are to hold experts as different from non-experts, then I must regard scientists who do the leg-work as more credible than bean-counters and snotty executives.
In the case of GMO, the same holds true. I cannot be certain an expert will be right, but they're more likely to be right.
What do the experts say? Well, in Europe (where the experts are actually expert and therefore worth listening to), GMO is banned by scientific advice.
Why not American scientists? Well, let's take something that isn't controversial. Bleached chicken. We now know chlorinating chicken doesn't kill salmonella or other pathogens, all it does is stop any existing methods from detecting salmonella. Studies show American chicken is extremely unsafe and unsanitary because it is bleached.
This should have been spotted very quickly in America, since it is their practice and all scientists are raised from hatchling (what, you thought scientists were human?) to listen to the Precautionary Principle.
So, no, I do not regard Americans as experts.
But that's ok. If there's something real, it'll be spotted by the EU, Russia, China, India or Africa, all places with scientific traditions. China's is perhaps the oldest, although they took a rest for a bit. If it's important, they'll notice and publish. I don't have to listen to one specific group. If it isn't replicated, or can't be, then it's not worth me paying attention to. If EU scientists don't trust the results, then they're experts and I listen to experts.
Is GMO food actually harmful? There's no proof of that. The precautionary principle doesn't require that there's proof of harm, it requires that you don't do anything if you don't understand the risks. Since it is applied here, it follows that a very large body of highly credible experts say that the risks aren't adequately understood to the standards expected by their profession.
GMO research is therefore substandard. There may be no risks at all, but the research isn't there.
Is it inherently harmful? Of course not! Horizontal gene transfers are remarkably common, albeit usually not from squid to pigs. I daresay that happens occasionally, though.
But it's only with CAS9 that they've been able to GMO humans to cure genetic diseases without an unacceptable cancer risk. Early retroviral inserts were more troublesome. Ergo, I would need to know the expert opinion on different generations of GMO food.
I don't see any problem with this. Ask an expert about a specific generation of GMO, not about GMO in the abstract. GMO in the abstract is safe, GMO in a specific formulation isn't necessarily and there may not be the data.
Should we put blind faith in GMO? With the myriad of techniques and the refusal of EU scientists to approve it, I'd say no. Blind faith in a specific technique, that's not so unreasonable, if EU scientists think it is safe.
Pesticide-enhanced crops? No, that's stupid. You're making resistant insects and killing off the beneficial wildlife. We know that. And most create pesticides either banned or temporarily halted prior to a ban due to the incompetence of the formula and the extreme damage to the environment.
Drought-resistant crops? If the EU scientists say it's ok, then ok.
Although, frankly, we massively overproduce food and America has a massive obesity problem. Reducing farmland to an absolute minimum and re-wilding the relinquished land would go a long way to improving health globally.
Forgot is the wrong word. Everyone knew there were reels of extra footage that had been misplaced. Nobody thought of long-term history, back then, which is why the BBC destroyed their copy of the landings. They've been looking for further footage for a while.
But now cynics have to explain how Stanley Kubrick managed all this extra filming with the same actors at the same time, hours and hours of it, with all these extra sets, without anyone noticing.
Further, you'd still have to explain why the takes had been misplaced. It's the same people, so recorded at the same time as all the other tapes.
Verizon's lawyer currently also chairman of the FCC isn't an idiot. Just a very skilled player. He'll have received millions under the table for this.
This won't shock him, this won't shock any of the Republicans on the FCC's board paid to vote with him.
Why should it shock anyone that Comcast, taken to court for cutting the cables of rivals, sees no reason to invest when they've secured a monopoly in many places through protection rackets and other Mafia-like conduct?
The Feds won't press them, Comcast pwned Trump and the Senate. Control them and you control just about everyone. At least, everyone still working.
Aside from being wrong, and being unable to provide sources for that reason, and confusing zero-hours or just giving up on claiming with a job, do you have anything relevant to say?
If X is promised in return for Y, then if You is delivered and X isn't, correlation under other circumstances is irrelevant. The fact is, Comcast lied.
Like we all knew they would.
They will suffer no penalties, only customers do that, and it'll get justified by their fanboys.
They're both action flicks about what are basically warring kingdoms involving swords, sorcery and skimpily clad women.
There are two differences. One of them involved the level of gore.
The other might attract a much larger fanbase but would certainly get a massive boardroom rebellion, not to mention a mass boycott of merchandise.
The original movie had broader appeal. It was part Eastern-style mystical, part western, part sci-fi, part World War 2 (George Lucas borrowed heavily from Dambusters and 633 Squadron).
That's a very broad audience.
The Last Jedi appealed to... Whom? It wasn't aimed at any of those target audiences and was generally a crap script.
So superior scripts, messier battles and an all-round appeal might rescue the franchise. But I'd recommend replacing LOJ entirely. It disrupts the flow.
What differed was ancestral breakdown, which is a flawed methodology based on correlating patterns with other patterns in a pseudoscientific way.
The results were the same.
Ancestral breakdown is not a result, it is a fable. You cannot determine ancestry by country or region through DNA, with the data set that currently exists, and it may not be possible at all. There's no reason to think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also much higher precision - by an order of magnitude. The US system cannot be trivially upgraded, you have to replace all of the satellites.
Yes. GPS has low reliability and is controlled by a lunatic. By having an alternative, high-precision, system that actually works and is not controlled by a lunatic, you have what's called a benefit.
That isn't an opinion, that is a prediction. A prediction that is reliable for particles of any given speed. A reliable prediction.
Internet Exploder never followed standards. You need horrible hacks to simulate correct behaviour. That's why other browser vendors hated it. It was an attempt to embrace, extend and extinguish the entire web.
1. Microsoft can't afford South Korea to shut down.
2. Microsoft has been subject to multiple antitrust trials regarding Internet Explorer, in both the U.S. and EU. Refusal to comply or learn and building Edge into the OS shows wilful negligence.
To boldly split infinitives where no infinitives have been split before.
Not without time travel and wire cutters. Microsoft built I.E. into their operating systems. Need a specific Microsoft OS? You use the web browser that is supplied, no matter what else you run.
Microsoft were told NOT to do this in 1995. They chose to compromise all subsequent computers instead. There is NOTHING anyone can do about it, save break up Microsoft.
Ice cores and tree ring data count as measurements, so about half a million years. No, not long.
Well, no, some are. You can't generalize from what is actually a tiny minority.
Iron Maiden capitalizes heavily on word of mouth advertising through reasonable copying. It's not keen on abuse of that, word is they send Eddie to sort out miscreants, but it's absolutely fine with fans doing all the promotional work for them.
That's a decent balance and seems entirely justified by this report, even though it's a different market. Same effect applies.
Why should physics have to be different. One side of the moon is silicates, one side is igneous. One side is partly sheltered from incoming meteorites, the other side isn't.
When things don't make sense, first check to see if what you think is sense actually is.
The Van Allen belts aren't a problem. NASA has never said otherwise.
You say blue screen, I say prove it.
Why should hair wave? Can you list the forces acting upon it?
The universe is not accountable for your lack of knowledge. If you don't understand, learn.
The 1990s. It had a few oddballs, but I liked the site back then. People were generally NICE. Friendly. Supportive.
We didn't need registration for a long time, people could be trusted to enter their own username. I only registered when it became mandatory, or I would have had a lower UID.
When "top secret" Scientology texts were published on Slashdot, almost all of us defended the poster's right to do so. There was no trolling or shaming, no modding out of sight because some power user didn't like it, no mass army of sock puppets drowning the discussion.
People from the NSA were offering interviews with Slashdot, such was the credibility of the site. They don't do that for just anyone.
Katz was getting interviews with a whole bunch of other folk in government, because Slashdot mattered and people here listened.
When I talked to CmdrTaco, readership was running at 100,000 a day, more than many national newspapers.
In those days, trolls were the ones who were silenced and conspiracy nutters were left out.
I think Perenz and I are the only two left of that generation.
The BBC said that about the Doctor Who episodes they destroyed. Those occasionally turn up, unless you're suggesting they raised Stanley Kubrick and William Hartnell from their graves to recreate them.
Misplaced film stock happens. Particularly when - I suspect - one engineer decided to stash a copy in a spare room.
I don't trust neonicotinoids because scientists were suppressed by corporations. Call me old-fashioned but I don't trust ignorance and I don't trust those who promote it. The experts were abused, trolled and hounded. That doesn't tell me the experts were right, but it sure as hell gives me cause for concern about the corporations. Particularly as the corporations prefer ignorance, trade secrets and suppression of data.
If we are to hold experts as different from non-experts, then I must regard scientists who do the leg-work as more credible than bean-counters and snotty executives.
In the case of GMO, the same holds true. I cannot be certain an expert will be right, but they're more likely to be right.
What do the experts say? Well, in Europe (where the experts are actually expert and therefore worth listening to), GMO is banned by scientific advice.
Why not American scientists? Well, let's take something that isn't controversial. Bleached chicken. We now know chlorinating chicken doesn't kill salmonella or other pathogens, all it does is stop any existing methods from detecting salmonella. Studies show American chicken is extremely unsafe and unsanitary because it is bleached.
This should have been spotted very quickly in America, since it is their practice and all scientists are raised from hatchling (what, you thought scientists were human?) to listen to the Precautionary Principle.
So, no, I do not regard Americans as experts.
But that's ok. If there's something real, it'll be spotted by the EU, Russia, China, India or Africa, all places with scientific traditions. China's is perhaps the oldest, although they took a rest for a bit. If it's important, they'll notice and publish. I don't have to listen to one specific group. If it isn't replicated, or can't be, then it's not worth me paying attention to. If EU scientists don't trust the results, then they're experts and I listen to experts.
Is GMO food actually harmful? There's no proof of that. The precautionary principle doesn't require that there's proof of harm, it requires that you don't do anything if you don't understand the risks. Since it is applied here, it follows that a very large body of highly credible experts say that the risks aren't adequately understood to the standards expected by their profession.
GMO research is therefore substandard. There may be no risks at all, but the research isn't there.
Is it inherently harmful? Of course not! Horizontal gene transfers are remarkably common, albeit usually not from squid to pigs. I daresay that happens occasionally, though.
But it's only with CAS9 that they've been able to GMO humans to cure genetic diseases without an unacceptable cancer risk. Early retroviral inserts were more troublesome. Ergo, I would need to know the expert opinion on different generations of GMO food.
I don't see any problem with this. Ask an expert about a specific generation of GMO, not about GMO in the abstract. GMO in the abstract is safe, GMO in a specific formulation isn't necessarily and there may not be the data.
Should we put blind faith in GMO? With the myriad of techniques and the refusal of EU scientists to approve it, I'd say no. Blind faith in a specific technique, that's not so unreasonable, if EU scientists think it is safe.
Pesticide-enhanced crops? No, that's stupid. You're making resistant insects and killing off the beneficial wildlife. We know that. And most create pesticides either banned or temporarily halted prior to a ban due to the incompetence of the formula and the extreme damage to the environment.
Drought-resistant crops? If the EU scientists say it's ok, then ok.
Although, frankly, we massively overproduce food and America has a massive obesity problem. Reducing farmland to an absolute minimum and re-wilding the relinquished land would go a long way to improving health globally.
One's near side, one's far side. Different conditions. Very different.
One side has been blasted from space, the other has had very few impacts - might be due to a bloody great planet shielding it.
One is mostly igneous rock, one is mostly silicate.
Forgot is the wrong word. Everyone knew there were reels of extra footage that had been misplaced. Nobody thought of long-term history, back then, which is why the BBC destroyed their copy of the landings. They've been looking for further footage for a while.
But now cynics have to explain how Stanley Kubrick managed all this extra filming with the same actors at the same time, hours and hours of it, with all these extra sets, without anyone noticing.
Further, you'd still have to explain why the takes had been misplaced. It's the same people, so recorded at the same time as all the other tapes.
Verizon's lawyer currently also chairman of the FCC isn't an idiot. Just a very skilled player. He'll have received millions under the table for this.
This won't shock him, this won't shock any of the Republicans on the FCC's board paid to vote with him.
Why should it shock anyone that Comcast, taken to court for cutting the cables of rivals, sees no reason to invest when they've secured a monopoly in many places through protection rackets and other Mafia-like conduct?
The Feds won't press them, Comcast pwned Trump and the Senate. Control them and you control just about everyone. At least, everyone still working.
Aside from being wrong, and being unable to provide sources for that reason, and confusing zero-hours or just giving up on claiming with a job, do you have anything relevant to say?
Thought not.
If X is promised in return for Y, then if You is delivered and X isn't, correlation under other circumstances is irrelevant. The fact is, Comcast lied.
Like we all knew they would.
They will suffer no penalties, only customers do that, and it'll get justified by their fanboys.
Coders are useless without good specifications, good practices and good languages. Test driven design beats most other forms.
Not many workplaces know how to do that, let alone budget the time to.
What, they can't ever make a movie about Queen Aethelflaed, Lady of Mercia? Queen Boudicca?
I'm pretty sure the last one was done and was considered damn good.
Know many schoolgirls who aspire to be hung over a bannister rail then dropped, possibly killing them?
Probably not. Didn't affect Still Trinian's revival movie or impact music sales.
We are the best, so screw the rest
We do as we damn well please
Ok, maybe I can see some aspiring to that. Same group that aspired to be Boudicca, I expect.
They're both action flicks about what are basically warring kingdoms involving swords, sorcery and skimpily clad women.
There are two differences. One of them involved the level of gore.
The other might attract a much larger fanbase but would certainly get a massive boardroom rebellion, not to mention a mass boycott of merchandise.
The original movie had broader appeal. It was part Eastern-style mystical, part western, part sci-fi, part World War 2 (George Lucas borrowed heavily from Dambusters and 633 Squadron).
That's a very broad audience.
The Last Jedi appealed to... Whom? It wasn't aimed at any of those target audiences and was generally a crap script.
So superior scripts, messier battles and an all-round appeal might rescue the franchise. But I'd recommend replacing LOJ entirely. It disrupts the flow.
What's wrong with Operational Research and nonlinear derivatives?
People have solved for competing criteria for something like 60 years.
What differed was ancestral breakdown, which is a flawed methodology based on correlating patterns with other patterns in a pseudoscientific way.
The results were the same.
Ancestral breakdown is not a result, it is a fable. You cannot determine ancestry by country or region through DNA, with the data set that currently exists, and it may not be possible at all. There's no reason to think it is.