Inventing a light bulb is not exactly breaking new frontiers
Investing the first commercially viable light bulb is.
No. It's not. It's no new frontier. It's a gradual improvement, and one person (or better: one laboratory with around 150 engineers) made exactly that improvement that allowed widespread commercial exploitation. In Edison's case, it was finding one special type of bamboo, whose charred fibers withstand 100 hrs of use. It was not the first solution for a lightbulb, it was not the best solution, it was just a commercially viable solution. It lead at first to a patent war about 90 patents directly connected to the lightbulb and another 125 patents around it. As I said: Edison's lightbulb was nothing radically new, it was state of the Art at the time of its invention. And the coal got replaced pretty soon (20 years later) with tantal wires and later with tungsten wires.
No. That's the transistor. Not the IC. Keeping the different transistors and diodes and resistors together on the silicon and just connect them there was invented in 1967 by Jack Kilby (for germanium though) and by Robert Noyce (actual silicon).
You miss the point of the parent poster. Inventing a light bulb is not exactly breaking new frontiers, especially when the first patents on lightbulbs are more than 25 years old at the time of invention. But going to Mars does not even require a big scientific breakthrough. We know how rockets work, we know how to get a load to Mars. It's done before. It will need lots of little improvements and innovation to get a person there, for sure. But what it really requires is lots and lots of funding. And you won't see a return of investment in the next decades, at least not pecuniarily. So no company will do it on its own. No conglomerate of companies will form on its own to get there. You need a state or even a group of states come together and make putting a person on Mars a state goal, and then fund it.
"Correlation is not causation" only applies when a study yields an incorrect result. When the conclusion is correct, then obviously correlation does mean causation.
It applies only if you are finding a correlation in data produced by passively monitoring events in a given system. It does not apply if you are actively changing one variable and then watch other variables.
If I understand the setup of the experiment correctly, then this study was about showing causal effects. So "correlation != causation" does not fit. It only fits if you are mining a given dataset and then find a correlation. It does not fit if you intentionally change one variable and then find another variable mimicking those changes.
A 29er MTB is a mountain bike with 29 inch wheels. Actually, they have 28 inch wheel rims (as you find in racing bicycles), but because the tyres are so fat, the sales pitch calls them 29-inch wheels.
I know. It was just an offer I knew (because it was heavily advertised), and I guess the infrastructure here is in place to offer much higher bandwidths for about the same price. The town's municipal utility has fiber in many parts of the town and offers fiber connections, and there is no technical reason to cap the bandwidth at 10 or 20 or 100 mps.
Yes, that's the point I want to make. I have a daughter myself, and I can see how she flips between "boyish" and "girlish". As a little child, she was "boyish", having an older brother and playing with toy trains and cars. Then we got new neighbors with two girls in her and my son's age, and since then, my daughter suddenly started to be interested in dolls and horses and glitter. After some time, the neighbors moved out again. Now she's aged 9, back into the "boyish" category, choosing CS as additional course in school, and being generally good in math and sciences.
For some reason I don't believe the $60 figure you are pulling out of your ass.
For some reason I rather believe the $10 covering the whole cost.
In my country, a telco based in a foreign country offers €10/mo. data plans for their UMTS based internet access.
I don't believe this telco is somehow subsidized by my taxes.
There are plenty of fields where a woman will just slaughter a man, for example a female pilot will whup the dog shit out of a male pilot because she can take more Gs and in a fight the one that can push the plane the hardest without having a black or red out wins.
Then why do we have so few female fighting pilots?
Women are better at language, women are better at diffusing tense situations which is why they make better cops and hostage negotiators...the list goes on and on.
Then why do we have so few female chief negotiators?
I think, you get it reverse on many things. You see the builder and notice his hard hands and well developed muscles and conclude, that children with soft hands and weak muscles should not aspire to become builders. You don't see the possibility that the hard hands and well developed muscles are a result of a development and not its cause.
Same with the male and the female brain: You see the different brain patterns and conclude they are the cause and not the result of a development. Maybe the american female brains show patterns that are typical for a person that has learned to deal with a difficult environment with a very strong social pressure and not much support for outlyers? It has to be able to negotiate and cooperate under most circumstances and build alliances, but use each and every possibility to get one up. And even then you might get it wrong by just looking at averages.
The variance between male brain patterns is so large, and the variance between female brain patterns is so large too, that the standard deviation of male brain patterns is larger than the average difference between a male and a female brain patterns. And even the average difference between e.g. asian male brain patterns and american male brain patterns is larger than the difference between american male brain patterns and american female brain patterns.
Or put it more clearly: most females show brain patterns that fall within the male variance, and most males show brain patterns that fall within the female variance.
It fits nicely. 21% above average, 50% average, 29% below average. If the 1% great mentioned are really exceptional, they will pull the average a little, thus there are a few more developers below than above, as we can say that most of the really worst programmers drop out of the field quite soon, thus tilting the distribution a little.
It is insecure because you have to use TPM and can't opt out. So it's not you defininig the security parameters, it's Microsoft. And the agencies sitting in Microsoft's back and dictating the rules.
Just read TFA, it does a good job at explaining the security risks and concers. One important concern is that while the BSI (the german Federal Office for Information Security) was involved in the TPM 2.0 specification, all their proposals were denied, while the proposals the NSA had were accepted. And the final acceptance was announced with "The NSA agrees".
If you actually had read the article, you would have seen that this is especially mentioned. Maybe the article is a little more insightful and balanced as you can imagine?
Or to be more exact: An energy utility has to buy the energy from local renewable feeders for a guaranteed price (that's, what the EEG is about). This of course causes the energy utility to adapt its own prices to reflect the guaranteed price for the feeders.
They claim 29,000 songs. Most of them have known authors, but they are in the public domain nevertheless, and there are regional variants of many of them. And yes, the web design is absolutely ugly. On the other hand, ingeb.org was online already when Netscape was taking over from Mosaic, and the design has not changed since.
What does expensive energie has to do with a concentration camp?
We have to get used with rising costs for a lot of thing. Accomodations in big and prospering cities. Medical bills. Insurance for houses in hurricane prone coastal areas. No one would compare them with concentration camps.
Slashdot Mirror
Inventing a light bulb is not exactly breaking new frontiers
Investing the first commercially viable light bulb is.
No. It's not. It's no new frontier. It's a gradual improvement, and one person (or better: one laboratory with around 150 engineers) made exactly that improvement that allowed widespread commercial exploitation. In Edison's case, it was finding one special type of bamboo, whose charred fibers withstand 100 hrs of use. It was not the first solution for a lightbulb, it was not the best solution, it was just a commercially viable solution. It lead at first to a patent war about 90 patents directly connected to the lightbulb and another 125 patents around it. As I said: Edison's lightbulb was nothing radically new, it was state of the Art at the time of its invention. And the coal got replaced pretty soon (20 years later) with tantal wires and later with tungsten wires.
I have the opportunity. The next store is right in front of my house.
No. That's the transistor. Not the IC. Keeping the different transistors and diodes and resistors together on the silicon and just connect them there was invented in 1967 by Jack Kilby (for germanium though) and by Robert Noyce (actual silicon).
You miss the point of the parent poster. Inventing a light bulb is not exactly breaking new frontiers, especially when the first patents on lightbulbs are more than 25 years old at the time of invention. But going to Mars does not even require a big scientific breakthrough. We know how rockets work, we know how to get a load to Mars. It's done before. It will need lots of little improvements and innovation to get a person there, for sure. But what it really requires is lots and lots of funding. And you won't see a return of investment in the next decades, at least not pecuniarily. So no company will do it on its own. No conglomerate of companies will form on its own to get there. You need a state or even a group of states come together and make putting a person on Mars a state goal, and then fund it.
"Correlation is not causation" only applies when a study yields an incorrect result. When the conclusion is correct, then obviously correlation does mean causation.
It applies only if you are finding a correlation in data produced by passively monitoring events in a given system. It does not apply if you are actively changing one variable and then watch other variables.
Yes, a meme can be completely misleading.
A 29er MTB is a mountain bike with 29 inch wheels. Actually, they have 28 inch wheel rims (as you find in racing bicycles), but because the tyres are so fat, the sales pitch calls them 29-inch wheels.
But the microchip was invented only in 1967, thus too late for it.
I know. It was just an offer I knew (because it was heavily advertised), and I guess the infrastructure here is in place to offer much higher bandwidths for about the same price. The town's municipal utility has fiber in many parts of the town and offers fiber connections, and there is no technical reason to cap the bandwidth at 10 or 20 or 100 mps.
Yes, that's the point I want to make. I have a daughter myself, and I can see how she flips between "boyish" and "girlish". As a little child, she was "boyish", having an older brother and playing with toy trains and cars. Then we got new neighbors with two girls in her and my son's age, and since then, my daughter suddenly started to be interested in dolls and horses and glitter. After some time, the neighbors moved out again. Now she's aged 9, back into the "boyish" category, choosing CS as additional course in school, and being generally good in math and sciences.
Just to prove my point: 9 GBytes/month. for €9 via UMTS. And no, I am not a customer there. I have a 30 mps / 4 mps fibre connection for 30 €/month.
For some reason I don't believe the $60 figure you are pulling out of your ass. For some reason I rather believe the $10 covering the whole cost. In my country, a telco based in a foreign country offers €10/mo. data plans for their UMTS based internet access. I don't believe this telco is somehow subsidized by my taxes.
You don't exactly know what "average" means? Just a hint: It does not mean "add all values".
There are plenty of fields where a woman will just slaughter a man, for example a female pilot will whup the dog shit out of a male pilot because she can take more Gs and in a fight the one that can push the plane the hardest without having a black or red out wins.
Then why do we have so few female fighting pilots?
Women are better at language, women are better at diffusing tense situations which is why they make better cops and hostage negotiators...the list goes on and on.
Then why do we have so few female chief negotiators?
I think, you get it reverse on many things. You see the builder and notice his hard hands and well developed muscles and conclude, that children with soft hands and weak muscles should not aspire to become builders. You don't see the possibility that the hard hands and well developed muscles are a result of a development and not its cause.
Same with the male and the female brain: You see the different brain patterns and conclude they are the cause and not the result of a development. Maybe the american female brains show patterns that are typical for a person that has learned to deal with a difficult environment with a very strong social pressure and not much support for outlyers? It has to be able to negotiate and cooperate under most circumstances and build alliances, but use each and every possibility to get one up. And even then you might get it wrong by just looking at averages.
The variance between male brain patterns is so large, and the variance between female brain patterns is so large too, that the standard deviation of male brain patterns is larger than the average difference between a male and a female brain patterns. And even the average difference between e.g. asian male brain patterns and american male brain patterns is larger than the difference between american male brain patterns and american female brain patterns.
Or put it more clearly: most females show brain patterns that fall within the male variance, and most males show brain patterns that fall within the female variance.
It fits nicely. 21% above average, 50% average, 29% below average. If the 1% great mentioned are really exceptional, they will pull the average a little, thus there are a few more developers below than above, as we can say that most of the really worst programmers drop out of the field quite soon, thus tilting the distribution a little.
It is insecure because you have to use TPM and can't opt out. So it's not you defininig the security parameters, it's Microsoft. And the agencies sitting in Microsoft's back and dictating the rules.
Just read TFA, it does a good job at explaining the security risks and concers. One important concern is that while the BSI (the german Federal Office for Information Security) was involved in the TPM 2.0 specification, all their proposals were denied, while the proposals the NSA had were accepted. And the final acceptance was announced with "The NSA agrees".
If you actually had read the article, you would have seen that this is especially mentioned. Maybe the article is a little more insightful and balanced as you can imagine?
Or to be more exact: An energy utility has to buy the energy from local renewable feeders for a guaranteed price (that's, what the EEG is about). This of course causes the energy utility to adapt its own prices to reflect the guaranteed price for the feeders.
The evidence is in the German EEG (Energie-Einspeise-Gesetz, Energy Feed-in Law), where exactly this is written down.
They claim 29,000 songs. Most of them have known authors, but they are in the public domain nevertheless, and there are regional variants of many of them. And yes, the web design is absolutely ugly. On the other hand, ingeb.org was online already when Netscape was taking over from Mosaic, and the design has not changed since.
It's probably because Germany imports oil and gas, which account for about 40% of the energy consumption.
We have to get used with rising costs for a lot of thing. Accomodations in big and prospering cities. Medical bills. Insurance for houses in hurricane prone coastal areas. No one would compare them with concentration camps.
It is not pointless if someone argues with the price per kWh. The price per kWh includes solar subsidies, but not nuclear subsidies.
It's called "Traditional" or "folk music".