The vast majority of nerds, scientists and intellectuals are leftist. They tend to have higher IQs, be wider read, be better educated and be able to put logic before emotion. I do not regard any on the right as qualifying as a nerd.
To those who flame me for saying that, how is your argument any better? At least I have data. And Picard.
That took mass cooperation and a collective desire.
Even on Slashdot, where people are better educated on the whole, you can see a great many are utterly and implacably opposed to green solutions. This isn't a function of whether they accept global warming, they don't want geoengineering or green energy on principle.
If we reforested the globe to 2000BC levels, we'd improve the situation but not as fast as the fossil fuel industry is worsening it.
We'd also stir up a lot of violent conflicts, Amazonian loggers are already prone to mass murder - rob them of their jobs, homes and wealth and they're likely to cause trouble.
So, yes, there's potential remedies, but far too many violent/powerful interests in favour of no remedy to actually use them.
You have to solve people first and nobody has done that.
QA has deteriorated to the point where Soyuz could fail like this. That means further errors in construction were possible.
However, the US system had no real escape after launch. The shuttle scrapped its after-launch escape system to satisfy Congressional budget constraints and Apollo was very limited.
Both had superb launch-site escape systems, from rockets that could rip the command module clear for Apollo to zip wires for the Shuttle.
Failure may not be an option, but it is a possibility and it's often cheaper to replace a crew than to build correctly.
Odds are, nobody ever told a person "you won't get X". Not how it is done.
Standard practice is to say "you didn't test for any known mutations". You can develop those mutations at any time and your DNA can be modified by viral and bacterial infections. Further, everyone alive is also a chimera - born with multiple genomes - in addition to a mosaic.
Same reason why nobody says "you will get X". It's a game of statistics, a mutation might alter the odds by 1-5% in either direction, but it is never 0 and never 100%.
Since DNA labs do not provide any of that, they can only provide probable origins based on data available or direct patrilineal/matrilineal descent (which won't have changed), we can infer you didn't understand what was being offered.
They may have been unclear, but as this has been public knowledge for a very long time, it was your responsibility to understand.
Remember, all that matters is the bandwidth of the most constrained point you traverse. And that's typically going to be near the servers, as point-to-point connections are highly inefficient.
If you place frequently-accessed content downstream, much nearer the recipient, you eliminate the need to use any of the pipes along the constricted regions.
Experiments I did on this in the 1990s, when the problem was at its worst, showed that you could get a 60-fold improvement in quality of experience, well beyond anything compression can achieve.
2. Multicast
Most people are used to a few seconds delay before streaming starts. If N people request the same content over a 5 second period, then delaying the first person by 5 seconds won't be perceived as abnormal. You're now transmitting one copy per path. This is an ideal way to populate the aforementioned caches, it would be useful for server-based content only if no caches exist.
3. Fractal compression
Technically, wavelet. Used in the BBC's Schrodinger codec. Produces far better compression than typical codecs.
4. Better pipes
Most of the rest of the world is already operating at bandwidths between 100-10,000x that common in the U.S., with U.S. cable companies have either prosecuted those offering higher speeds or driven heavy equipment through their cables. It is time to stop accepting this as the cost of doing business.
The U.S. should mandate 50 gbps to the home, the highest speed available elsewhere on a large scale. If you're going to be the best, you have to be the best. The U.S. should not be an also-ran. A fat tree is impossible, at those speeds. Realistically, I doubt you could get a block to handle more than 200 gbps. Which is adequate.
Tier 1 is fine, just have a mesh network. Current SDM transmission rates are 111 tbps, which means you can support 555 blocks of houses off a single seven core cable. GMING can supply the info on how you'd actually get that to work on a metro level.
You're really not going to need to do a whole lot of compression at those speeds.
Tracking customers doesn't actually add anything. Knowing someone bought a spade does NOT mean they want adverts for spades. Big data analysis works on aggregates, not individuals, and automatically personalized content is rarely what the person wants.
Question 2: Does it improve service?
Complexity is the enemy of both throughput and stability. If there is no business case or technical case for tracking, you're adding complexity and therefore degrading service. Degraded service degrades customer numbers.
Question 3: Where is the profit?
It is not enough for a feature to make a marginal improvement. The feature costs money to add, costs money to store the data about, costs money to maintain and costs money to digest. That's a lot of money. If you can get equally good results without spending that money, you're in a stronger position.
Question 4: Can you maintain security?
The economic value of data is lost if your competitors have your data. Worse, the PR damage will cut into your customer base and the fines and other legal damage will degrade your finances. Have you got the ability to protect that information, knowing most businesses out there have shown they do not?
I doubt any company out there can answer those questions honestly and conclude that tracking is useful. They do it because everyone else is and they don't want to be seen as lagging behind. It's all about image and anxiety.
Slashdot Mirror
When did they edit this data, exactly?
The hokey stick graph has been around since the 60s.
Global warming has been described by science since 1890.
So when did the data get faked?
Except that no climate scientists has ever used faked data. Only the critics have.
No. Just... no.
For further explanation of why, I suggest reading Gleik's Chaos and looking up papers by Edward Lorenz. Even looking up
Climate isn't a one-dimensional function, it is a series of trillions of non-linear feedback loops with non-linear changes to components.
That is why increase is turbulent, not smooth.
A conspiracy that has lasted since 1890, one nobody has ever shown to exist in all that time. My, you're giving those scientists a lot of credit.
What were they after, back in 1890?
If they're smart enough to keep it hidden for 128 years, why can't they be smart enough to be right?
Plenty of things are permanent. Energy and information cannot be created or destroyed, and that's essentially everything.
The vast majority of nerds, scientists and intellectuals are leftist. They tend to have higher IQs, be wider read, be better educated and be able to put logic before emotion. I do not regard any on the right as qualifying as a nerd.
To those who flame me for saying that, how is your argument any better? At least I have data. And Picard.
That took mass cooperation and a collective desire.
Even on Slashdot, where people are better educated on the whole, you can see a great many are utterly and implacably opposed to green solutions. This isn't a function of whether they accept global warming, they don't want geoengineering or green energy on principle.
If we reforested the globe to 2000BC levels, we'd improve the situation but not as fast as the fossil fuel industry is worsening it.
We'd also stir up a lot of violent conflicts, Amazonian loggers are already prone to mass murder - rob them of their jobs, homes and wealth and they're likely to cause trouble.
So, yes, there's potential remedies, but far too many violent/powerful interests in favour of no remedy to actually use them.
You have to solve people first and nobody has done that.
No, warmer summers and colder winters are exactly what Britain experience now.
It's really is amazing people believe that. No data has been adjusted. Fantasists claim that to make observations fit their theories.
Because pensions are all in 401k schemes.
Unless it's in a convoy, the bandwidth is low. The latency is terrible.
There was research into liquid crystal memory, which could have been used like optical tape, but it proved to be impractical in reality.
Parallel file store onto striped tape systems provides the best throughput for serial data.
Scientific data can be stored using parallel NetCDF, which is designed for such cases.
Tape is useless for random access, but that's not what you do with backup/restore or simple data logging from scientific instruments.
QA has deteriorated to the point where Soyuz could fail like this. That means further errors in construction were possible.
However, the US system had no real escape after launch. The shuttle scrapped its after-launch escape system to satisfy Congressional budget constraints and Apollo was very limited.
Both had superb launch-site escape systems, from rockets that could rip the command module clear for Apollo to zip wires for the Shuttle.
Failure may not be an option, but it is a possibility and it's often cheaper to replace a crew than to build correctly.
Your best bet is to monitor SNPedia and PLOS One.
Since a DNA test doesn't show relationships, the DNA test did not do that.
My guess is that you don't know what a DNA test does do.
Would be a full exome decode. $500 seems a bit cheap for that, but it is possible.
A complete exome sequencing would give you the best possible data on all medical conditions.
Odds are, nobody ever told a person "you won't get X". Not how it is done.
Standard practice is to say "you didn't test for any known mutations". You can develop those mutations at any time and your DNA can be modified by viral and bacterial infections. Further, everyone alive is also a chimera - born with multiple genomes - in addition to a mosaic.
Same reason why nobody says "you will get X". It's a game of statistics, a mutation might alter the odds by 1-5% in either direction, but it is never 0 and never 100%.
Since DNA labs do not provide any of that, they can only provide probable origins based on data available or direct patrilineal/matrilineal descent (which won't have changed), we can infer you didn't understand what was being offered.
They may have been unclear, but as this has been public knowledge for a very long time, it was your responsibility to understand.
You offer no evidence.
Indeed, as the latter is impossible, I'll state that you're attempting to defraud people of the right to discuss the issue.
First, your genome does change. It changes per cell, slowly for most cells, but to the point every neuron in your brain has a distinct genome.
Second, most of us know this and use companies that re-analyze the data on a regular basis. I use Promethease, which uses SNPedia, on a yearly basis.
First, your genome d
1. Caching.
Remember, all that matters is the bandwidth of the most constrained point you traverse. And that's typically going to be near the servers, as point-to-point connections are highly inefficient.
If you place frequently-accessed content downstream, much nearer the recipient, you eliminate the need to use any of the pipes along the constricted regions.
Experiments I did on this in the 1990s, when the problem was at its worst, showed that you could get a 60-fold improvement in quality of experience, well beyond anything compression can achieve.
2. Multicast
Most people are used to a few seconds delay before streaming starts. If N people request the same content over a 5 second period, then delaying the first person by 5 seconds won't be perceived as abnormal. You're now transmitting one copy per path. This is an ideal way to populate the aforementioned caches, it would be useful for server-based content only if no caches exist.
3. Fractal compression
Technically, wavelet. Used in the BBC's Schrodinger codec. Produces far better compression than typical codecs.
4. Better pipes
Most of the rest of the world is already operating at bandwidths between 100-10,000x that common in the U.S., with U.S. cable companies have either prosecuted those offering higher speeds or driven heavy equipment through their cables. It is time to stop accepting this as the cost of doing business.
The U.S. should mandate 50 gbps to the home, the highest speed available elsewhere on a large scale. If you're going to be the best, you have to be the best. The U.S. should not be an also-ran. A fat tree is impossible, at those speeds. Realistically, I doubt you could get a block to handle more than 200 gbps. Which is adequate.
Tier 1 is fine, just have a mesh network. Current SDM transmission rates are 111 tbps, which means you can support 555 blocks of houses off a single seven core cable. GMING can supply the info on how you'd actually get that to work on a metro level.
You're really not going to need to do a whole lot of compression at those speeds.
Question 1: Does it add value?
Tracking customers doesn't actually add anything. Knowing someone bought a spade does NOT mean they want adverts for spades. Big data analysis works on aggregates, not individuals, and automatically personalized content is rarely what the person wants.
Question 2: Does it improve service?
Complexity is the enemy of both throughput and stability. If there is no business case or technical case for tracking, you're adding complexity and therefore degrading service. Degraded service degrades customer numbers.
Question 3: Where is the profit?
It is not enough for a feature to make a marginal improvement. The feature costs money to add, costs money to store the data about, costs money to maintain and costs money to digest. That's a lot of money. If you can get equally good results without spending that money, you're in a stronger position.
Question 4: Can you maintain security?
The economic value of data is lost if your competitors have your data. Worse, the PR damage will cut into your customer base and the fines and other legal damage will degrade your finances. Have you got the ability to protect that information, knowing most businesses out there have shown they do not?
I doubt any company out there can answer those questions honestly and conclude that tracking is useful. They do it because everyone else is and they don't want to be seen as lagging behind. It's all about image and anxiety.