I'm pointing out that taxi companies select drivers based on those physical attributes and Uber/Lyft self selected drivers are from a clearly distinguishable group. This was in response to the post saying the taxi companies are "are pretty picky about who drives for them".
You are a knee jerk race-card puller because you are incapable of reading and understanding what is presented to you, instead choosing the less intellectually challenging path of parlaying trigger words into twisted semantic interpretations.
They are a privately held company, if you post a profit, you're doing it wrong.
I was pretty chuffed that my wife's business posted a $300 loss the year before last. Not by design. It just worked out that way. Last year the rules it turned LLC) required us to pay to pay an accountant so we're paying a professional to deliver a tax efficient loss.
So apparently if you don't post profits immediately, you are a failed company? Isn't it standard to post losses for 2-3 years before you become profitable. Well, 3 years in California. After 3 you cant write off the losses from your company anymore.
Why would you incorporate in California when you can incorporate in Delaware?
The bad-guy passenger is probably going to give off some signs
Sometimes you can spot a crazy a mile off. And sometimes, psychopaths look just like anyone else. Usually you find out when they say something completely out of not left field, but some field that doesn't even actually exist.
But the people who demand the carry their guns wherever they go don't understand that they are crazy. So they can't control their own own crazy vibe because they don't know to try.
So why, when I get in a normal taxi, is it driven by a scary person who looks like DeNiro in Taxi Driver, but only speaks Somalian? Yet when I get get in an Uber or Lyft car, I get someone who speaks clear English and doesn't set off my serial killer sixth sense.
The subject privacy rules also grant access to people not institutions. Even if an institution has the data, it doesn't mean the institution has people who are authorized to see the data. the customer (the government probably) has an interest in the data it has paid for being in the hands of the authorized investigators. Principally the PI, which is why that person is called the PI.
>That results in about 7.1 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for cars compared to 0.071 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for planes. Or two orders of magnitude in the worst case for planes! That's a big difference.
I typically travel two orders of magnitude further in a plane than in a car. This is how it balances.
My last trip by plane was 10,000 miles. My last car trip was 2 miles.
Huh? In the last 5 years there have been a total of about 5 people killed on commercial flights in the US. In the same time there have been about 200,000 killed in car accidents.
There are a lot more car miles that air miles traveled in the US per unit time.
If you consider the risk per trip, it is higher for planes, but less per mile. So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well. The difference isn't big and it may be the other way around right now because planes have had a good few years. But I don't have 2014/2015 data.
But as far as risk goes, these are small numbers. There are things that are much more likely to kill you. Cars and planes don't even make the top 10.
Air planes are not the safer form of transport. Two reasons. One, it just counts the miles while flying when the plane is not in danger. It flies faster than cars, boats, etc so it seems better because it travel longer distance. Second, if you get in car, boat crash you have a good chance to survival. Air plane crash, you are almost certainly dead.
Yes. You are less likely to die in a plane than a car per mile traveled, but per unit time you travel much further in a plane. If you flew in a plane for as much time as you spend in a car you are more likely to die in the plane than the car.
If he is PI, he should have the data. If taxes paid for it, the data should be available to anyone the feds approve to view the data, which is generally determined by the PI.
So yes, it's an academic hissy fit, that one university lost a PI on a government funded study and the project moved with him as it should.
My wife was in the position of running a government funded education study. Education departments in universities know nothing about securing or protecting data, so it fell to me to do the crypto and backups. The alternative was to keep it all on paper in a locked box.
The data was paid for out of taxes. Federal rules on privacy apply, but any researcher authorized to see the data by the feds should have access to it.
>Why? Can't you just tell me what you want to say? Alright. It's not just ground loops. Everyone who attribute electrical noise only to ground loops doesn't understand noise.
Ground loops matter, but the way the current and signal flow in the wire matters too. Ott's book pages 58 and 59 show 10 configurations, 5 ground loop configurations and five non-ground loop configurations, all with different noise suppression characteristics.
Cutting a ground loop will cut ground loop currents and the associated noise, but there's another 25db of noise suppression between the worst performing and best performing non-ground loop configuration.
The Wiki page is about ground loops, so talks about ground loops. That doesn't mean ground loops are the only consideration or even the most important consideration. If your problem is about noise in wires, then there's more to it than ground loops.
Such as the A, A not, B, B not. It is impossible to induce both a positive and a negative noise onto a wire at the same point in time, so as long as both signals are true it's a one, if not it's a zero. More wires, but zero errors.
Because it's massively inefficient. 4 wires to get data through which could each carry 80% of the goodput with 20% error redundancy. So that's 3.2 times better than your 4 wire scheme.
That needs to go away. We need an Ethernet protocol extension with BCH or Hamming code support.
The 1970s called and wants its error correction scheme back. Try LDPC or turbo codes or or Reed Solomon if you like it old school, but not too old school maybe mixed with soft decision decoding, or fancy DDFSE schemes. But never meddle in the ways of MIMO, for therein madness lays.
Slashdot Mirror
>taking a cab at a 30% discount is uber-cool
B.S. Where I live, Uber isn't 30% cheaper than taxis. It is 100% more practical and convenient though.
>You're a racist because..
I'm pointing out that taxi companies select drivers based on those physical attributes and Uber/Lyft self selected drivers are from a clearly distinguishable group. This was in response to the post saying the taxi companies are "are pretty picky about who drives for them".
You are a knee jerk race-card puller because you are incapable of reading and understanding what is presented to you, instead choosing the less intellectually challenging path of parlaying trigger words into twisted semantic interpretations.
Because you're racist.
Someone else said that as well, also without bothering to think about who's choosing the taxi drivers. It isn't me.
>Because you are a racist bastard and bigot
No I'm not.
Language and sketchiness, not origin or skin colour. There's a difference. I don't choose who drives. The taxi company does.
They are a privately held company, if you post a profit, you're doing it wrong.
I was pretty chuffed that my wife's business posted a $300 loss the year before last. Not by design. It just worked out that way. Last year the rules it turned LLC) required us to pay to pay an accountant so we're paying a professional to deliver a tax efficient loss.
So apparently if you don't post profits immediately, you are a failed company? Isn't it standard to post losses for 2-3 years before you become profitable. Well, 3 years in California. After 3 you cant write off the losses from your company anymore.
Why would you incorporate in California when you can incorporate in Delaware?
The bad-guy passenger is probably going to give off some signs
Sometimes you can spot a crazy a mile off. And sometimes, psychopaths look just like anyone else. Usually you find out when they say something completely out of not left field, but some field that doesn't even actually exist.
But the people who demand the carry their guns wherever they go don't understand that they are crazy. So they can't control their own own crazy vibe because they don't know to try.
>WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
https://xkcd.com/1013/
> and are pretty picky about who drives for them.
So why, when I get in a normal taxi, is it driven by a scary person who looks like DeNiro in Taxi Driver, but only speaks Somalian? Yet when I get get in an Uber or Lyft car, I get someone who speaks clear English and doesn't set off my serial killer sixth sense.
>it's hard to see where Uber's costs are
Lawyers
>There's only one Uber.
But I used Lyft last night.
That certainly is not universally true.
The subject privacy rules also grant access to people not institutions. Even if an institution has the data, it doesn't mean the institution has people who are authorized to see the data. the customer (the government probably) has an interest in the data it has paid for being in the hands of the authorized investigators. Principally the PI, which is why that person is called the PI.
>That results in about 7.1 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for cars compared to 0.071 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for planes. Or two orders of magnitude in the worst case for planes! That's a big difference.
I typically travel two orders of magnitude further in a plane than in a car. This is how it balances.
My last trip by plane was 10,000 miles. My last car trip was 2 miles.
Huh? In the last 5 years there have been a total of about 5 people killed on commercial flights in the US. In the same time there have been about 200,000 killed in car accidents.
There are a lot more car miles that air miles traveled in the US per unit time.
The most recent 2013 data
If you consider the risk per trip, it is higher for planes, but less per mile. So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well. The difference isn't big and it may be the other way around right now because planes have had a good few years. But I don't have 2014/2015 data.
But as far as risk goes, these are small numbers. There are things that are much more likely to kill you. Cars and planes don't even make the top 10.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
And you aren't going to fly to work, unless you're this guy..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/...
Air planes are not the safer form of transport. Two reasons. One, it just counts the miles while flying when the plane is not in danger. It flies faster than cars, boats, etc so it seems better because it travel longer distance. Second, if you get in car, boat crash you have a good chance to survival. Air plane crash, you are almost certainly dead.
Yes. You are less likely to die in a plane than a car per mile traveled, but per unit time you travel much further in a plane. If you flew in a plane for as much time as you spend in a car you are more likely to die in the plane than the car.
If he is PI, he should have the data.
If taxes paid for it, the data should be available to anyone the feds approve to view the data, which is generally determined by the PI.
So yes, it's an academic hissy fit, that one university lost a PI on a government funded study and the project moved with him as it should.
My wife was in the position of running a government funded education study. Education departments in universities know nothing about securing or protecting data, so it fell to me to do the crypto and backups. The alternative was to keep it all on paper in a locked box.
The data was paid for out of taxes. Federal rules on privacy apply, but any researcher authorized to see the data by the feds should have access to it.
Prime sharing?
I came here thinking that this was a crypto problem.
>Why? Can't you just tell me what you want to say?
Alright. It's not just ground loops. Everyone who attribute electrical noise only to ground loops doesn't understand noise.
Ground loops matter, but the way the current and signal flow in the wire matters too. Ott's book pages 58 and 59 show 10 configurations, 5 ground loop configurations and five non-ground loop configurations, all with different noise suppression characteristics.
Cutting a ground loop will cut ground loop currents and the associated noise, but there's another 25db of noise suppression between the worst performing and best performing non-ground loop configuration.
The Wiki page is about ground loops, so talks about ground loops. That doesn't mean ground loops are the only consideration or even the most important consideration. If your problem is about noise in wires, then there's more to it than ground loops.
>Is it even worthwhile to use an app like that to save a few cents on gas?
I used it when I had a diesel pickup truck, because it could tell me the nearest petrol station that had diesel.
Consult the relevant pages from the best book on electronic noise and how to get rid of it.
Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Systems by Ott.
Such as the A, A not, B, B not. It is impossible to induce both a positive and a negative noise onto a wire at the same point in time, so as long as both signals are true it's a one, if not it's a zero. More wires, but zero errors.
Because it's massively inefficient. 4 wires to get data through which could each carry 80% of the goodput with 20% error redundancy. So that's 3.2 times better than your 4 wire scheme.
That needs to go away. We need an Ethernet protocol extension with BCH or Hamming code support.
The 1970s called and wants its error correction scheme back.
Try LDPC or turbo codes or or Reed Solomon if you like it old school, but not too old school maybe mixed with soft decision decoding, or fancy DDFSE schemes.
But never meddle in the ways of MIMO, for therein madness lays.
A problem we've solved already. Just use a hinge and two screens..
Please put a mechanical keyboard on one half, not a screen.
>But just a few weeks ago I had an empty row in economy plus to myself from Houston to San Francisco.
It's a sign of the end of times!