The problem is not so much with UTC but with unix time, as POSIX and NTP have conflicting conventions for handling leap seconds. Well and Google NTP has yet another convention. But the spirit of what you say is correct, we should probably abandon unix time as the fundamental representation on computers in favor of TAI. Software already has to consult a timezone database to convert to local time anyway, why not also require that for conversion to UTC too (to get the leap second offset from TAI).
So your argument comes down to exactly how "close" the quoted advisor is to a still-forming administration. -- so not fake news. i.e. the quote was not made up, the person does exist, and he is related to the nascent Trump administration in the way stated. I'm also happy to hear that you agree that cutting NASA's climate science budget would be extremely important news if it came from the mouth of someone close enough to the administration -- let's just agree that some more cautious people might worry that we don't actually know who those people are and are not quite yet.
A long but good reply. Intentionally completely made-up news is not equivalent to bias or incomplete fact-checking. That is the false equivalence that seems to be being pushed by the trolls here on slashdot.
These are usually marked as "Opinion:", so this is really just a processing mistake. This is obvious to anyone who has ever been to google news, so I don't know why you are pretending that google doesn't mark opinion as such. And you shouldn't "trust" google news for anything!!!! It's just a scraping service. If you don't pay attention to the actual source of the link you are part of the problem.
No. intentionally made-up "news" and biased news about actual events are not equivalent. The "fake" news problem is about actual fake stuff; intentionally and knowingly made-up stuff. Like with people in it that don't exist, etc.
Just a reminder that the state department email that she should have been using also was not allowed to have classified info in it. The classified information thing is a red herring, the real issue is whether Clinton was evading records laws, but the previous republican administration did that in exactly the same way (private email) but to so much more of a degree that they try to distract you with this classified information red herring. So they'll just do it again. Like Bannon is going to start using a government email address for all his government-related communication. HA!
I think if everybody took the approach of Mr. Snowden, everything would be fine. He was very deliberate and circumspect about what was released and how. Not dangerously irresponsible like Manning and wikileaks. Snowden is the kind of whistle-blower that should be respected. The problem is that the government wants to pretend that the things he revealed were actually legal when they were not, and Obama is unfortunately willing to go along with it. If anyone thinks a Trump administration is going to be better, I believe that they are about to be even more surprised than Obama supporters were.
If we want the EC to function more as it was originally, electors names should appear on the bollot and NOT the candidate. That's the way it was originally. I think if we stick with the electoral college then, yes, it should go back that way. It would at least make it harder to pretend it is a direct vote.
I think its simpler than that. Going into a close vote "slightly favored" is a good way to lose due to lazy voters. And I think the democrats are especially vulnerable to it. (although, as noted in this story, Clinton actually won the vote, just not the election.)
BS. This false equivalency is a cop-out. While I don't think Trump is the devil, he is not what you want in a president. He appears basically out of touch with the process of governing the nation and leading on a world stage in some other way than as a bully. Clinton is maybe not the best available moderate progressive, but she clearly understands policy challenges and makes a serious effort to make things work. It is conceivable that Trump would just check out the day he is elected and leave governing to the cadre of ultra-nationalists that have gravitated to him. There are those that seek power to impose their will on others, and there are those that seek power in service of others. I'll let you identify which side is which. And no it is not complicated. The side stirring up doubt in our electoral process "if I lose" is the side seeking to impose its will. The side encouraging voter intimidation is the side seeking to impose its will. The side shouting for the other side to be put in jail is the the side seeking to impose its will. And these are just things from the candidate. To even suggest that it would be okay to break one of our most essential functions of government by refusing to confirm any supreme court nominees by the duly elected president...
Your statement doesn't even address his point. As far as we know, staff were not supposed to send her anything classified (um... obviously!!). i.e. if they did they were in error and they would be the subject of prosecution, not her. No special treatment for Clinton is involved. The classified material thing is a strawman created to deceive YOU. The only real issue is the records-keeping, but the republicans violated that so flagrantly and wilfully during the previous administration that that argument actually makes Clinton look good by comparison.
Well, to take a cynical view, consider this plan:
1. Establish rocket company that can send stuff to Mars
2. Send 100 or so humans to Mars
3. OMG they're going to die, but we don't have any more money to send them supplies!
4. Profit!!
Though I admit, if you wanted to force the hand of society into creating an interplanetary civilization, you would use basically the same strategy if you had the ability to do step 1. I think this is one of the ideas explored in "The Martian" -- society appears to be much more interested in drama than either science or progress. You may note that the people look a lot like hostages in this scenario, regardless of whether they are willing or not.
It's called the race to the bottom. The "don't be evil" motto was based on the idea that users would not just offer up their personal information without some proof that it would not be misused. It turns out this was not true. People will upload their most personal information (and that of their closest friends and even their children, which is even worse) for what amounts to services worth less than $100 a year. It's sickening.
For personal email might suggest hover.com. But I think there are many service that will provide email service that is not being data-mined for an amount any smartphone user would barely notice in their yearly budget.
I had a battery recall on a NVIDIA tablet and the return kit was a fireproof box that required ground shipping. And they weren't exploding, just failing early. This is standard procedure for any defective li-ion battery.
Unfortunately there isn't much overlap between danger addicts and people with the skills, foresight, and pragmatism necessary to make a mars colony work.
That's not to say there are no good candidates for colonists, they just aren't like the guy that you're talking about. They are more like our current U.S. astronauts for whom getting a Ph.D. is just something they do along the way because they have a ridiculous amount of discipline and aptitude. There are many more qualified applicants than there are spots for them to fill, and there would probably be even more if the space program were more real. Interplanetary viability of the species is something that even very pragmatic and intelligent people are willing to risk their lives for.
I think the concern is that the Tesla system may not have even identified the semi trailer across the lane as an obstacle at all because it is not clear that the Tesla's brakes were applied prior to the collision. Any defensive human driver would have taken note of the truck in the turn lane before it even started its turn and prepared to take action if it turned unexpectedly, even if they were unable to stop or swerve in the end. Tesla's system was definitely unaware of the truck until it entered the lane, and was most likely incapable of determining the actual structure and size of the obstacle.
But the big problem everyone is worried about is right there in the first sentence of your link. The article calls it a "self-driving car" which even Tesla (except for their CEO in promotion mode) takes pains to say it is NOT. Treating a Tesla on autopilot as a self-driving car is extremely dangerous to the driver and all motorists around them. The sensor package and software is not designed for that usage.
Thanks for an actual description of how it behaves. It sounds like any reasonably conscientious safe driver would stop using the autopilot feature in most situations after some testing because it is obviously unsafe except in a fairly tightly constrained set of situations. This is why autonomous trucks or designated autonomous lanes make sense with this level of automation. For commercial trucks, the driver can be trained on what the appropriate use cases are and held responsible for inappropriate usage, and in the designated lanes case the situation can be constrained to within safe parameters or supplementary information can be provided to the autonomous system. Expecting people to just discover the appropriate use cases without training is (was?) just a bad idea and will get people killed.
This completely misunderstands NASA's role. NASA is a space research agency, not a rocket company or a launch vendor. As others have said, NASA being highly supportive of SpaceX means that what SpaceX is doing and what NASA is doing ARE THE SAME THING. NASA runs space missions. If they choose an innovative launch vendor like SpaceX, then they are doing exactly what you want them to. The fact that congress is so pork-oriented that a huge fraction of NASA's budget is mandated to pay for another launch system that has no clear purpose is not NASA's fault. I want NASA to focus on running good space missions, which may have been about rocketry in the 60's but today it's about spacecraft and the rocketry is just the delivery service.
There is only one Internet. That's what the capital is for. It is a proper noun indicating the network of all globally routable addresses. If the people at the AP are so clueless as to not know that, no wonder the news is so bad.
Of course they use the more direct size measurements when they are available. It sounds like those 102 are the control sample, in which they have both WISE measurements (IR light) and a more direct measurement of size. They don't need a thermal model for those objects. And when just reporting object size they should report the size inferred from previous radar or occultation if that is available.
It sounds to me like this guy developed a thermal model that doesn't work for objects for which the size is known from other methods. The obvious conclusion is that the thermal model is not good, but apparently he has instead decided that it's a vast conspiracy to hide the true sizes of asteroids. I'm sure the WISE and NEOWISE teams would be happy for someone to develop an improved thermal model if theirs is only accurate to 15% for objects with known size. However, this appears to be a case of this crazy outsider trying to push a worse thermal model through outrageous and insulting press releases. Not exactly how science is supposed to work.
Somehow I don't think another study debunking the association of autism with vaccination is going to make any difference, so I think it's fine the CDC wouldn't waste money on it. And you don't even appear to be able to state your conclusion correctly, since autism's correlation with autism is pretty meaningless, I assume you meant autism's correlation with vaccination rate. I'm pretty sure it is well known that risk of autism increases with the mother's age.
I am unsure the subchapter you quote applies in this case because the FBI is not compelling a pre-market system change. They are compelling assistance after the fact for an individual device. I personally think it would be better for us all if Apple loses because it should be made abundantly clear that a device that is vulnerable to a firmware replacement attack is not secure, even if the manufacturer is the only entity that can sign a new firmware. As far as technically possible, the device owner's data security should not depend on the manufacturer's ability to resist legal action (or their ability to resist a well-resourced hacker, which is much more dangerous).
The piece of information that you are missing is that the UK has already gutted its internal research funding. The UK government is not going to suddenly become more friendly to science funding even if the need to pay the EU goes away. As far as I know, one of the few good sources of academic research funding in the UK currently is from the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not so much with UTC but with unix time, as POSIX and NTP have conflicting conventions for handling leap seconds. Well and Google NTP has yet another convention. But the spirit of what you say is correct, we should probably abandon unix time as the fundamental representation on computers in favor of TAI. Software already has to consult a timezone database to convert to local time anyway, why not also require that for conversion to UTC too (to get the leap second offset from TAI).
So your argument comes down to exactly how "close" the quoted advisor is to a still-forming administration. -- so not fake news. i.e. the quote was not made up, the person does exist, and he is related to the nascent Trump administration in the way stated. I'm also happy to hear that you agree that cutting NASA's climate science budget would be extremely important news if it came from the mouth of someone close enough to the administration -- let's just agree that some more cautious people might worry that we don't actually know who those people are and are not quite yet.
A long but good reply. Intentionally completely made-up news is not equivalent to bias or incomplete fact-checking. That is the false equivalence that seems to be being pushed by the trolls here on slashdot.
These are usually marked as "Opinion:", so this is really just a processing mistake. This is obvious to anyone who has ever been to google news, so I don't know why you are pretending that google doesn't mark opinion as such. And you shouldn't "trust" google news for anything!!!! It's just a scraping service. If you don't pay attention to the actual source of the link you are part of the problem.
No. intentionally made-up "news" and biased news about actual events are not equivalent. The "fake" news problem is about actual fake stuff; intentionally and knowingly made-up stuff. Like with people in it that don't exist, etc.
Just a reminder that the state department email that she should have been using also was not allowed to have classified info in it. The classified information thing is a red herring, the real issue is whether Clinton was evading records laws, but the previous republican administration did that in exactly the same way (private email) but to so much more of a degree that they try to distract you with this classified information red herring. So they'll just do it again. Like Bannon is going to start using a government email address for all his government-related communication. HA!
I think if everybody took the approach of Mr. Snowden, everything would be fine. He was very deliberate and circumspect about what was released and how. Not dangerously irresponsible like Manning and wikileaks. Snowden is the kind of whistle-blower that should be respected. The problem is that the government wants to pretend that the things he revealed were actually legal when they were not, and Obama is unfortunately willing to go along with it. If anyone thinks a Trump administration is going to be better, I believe that they are about to be even more surprised than Obama supporters were.
While I agree on instant run-off, I think that congress can only be fixed with term limits. Power is determined by seniority, so incumbents win.
If we want the EC to function more as it was originally, electors names should appear on the bollot and NOT the candidate. That's the way it was originally. I think if we stick with the electoral college then, yes, it should go back that way. It would at least make it harder to pretend it is a direct vote.
I think its simpler than that. Going into a close vote "slightly favored" is a good way to lose due to lazy voters. And I think the democrats are especially vulnerable to it. (although, as noted in this story, Clinton actually won the vote, just not the election.)
BS. This false equivalency is a cop-out. While I don't think Trump is the devil, he is not what you want in a president. He appears basically out of touch with the process of governing the nation and leading on a world stage in some other way than as a bully. Clinton is maybe not the best available moderate progressive, but she clearly understands policy challenges and makes a serious effort to make things work. It is conceivable that Trump would just check out the day he is elected and leave governing to the cadre of ultra-nationalists that have gravitated to him. There are those that seek power to impose their will on others, and there are those that seek power in service of others. I'll let you identify which side is which. And no it is not complicated. The side stirring up doubt in our electoral process "if I lose" is the side seeking to impose its will. The side encouraging voter intimidation is the side seeking to impose its will. The side shouting for the other side to be put in jail is the the side seeking to impose its will. And these are just things from the candidate. To even suggest that it would be okay to break one of our most essential functions of government by refusing to confirm any supreme court nominees by the duly elected president...
Your statement doesn't even address his point. As far as we know, staff were not supposed to send her anything classified (um... obviously!!). i.e. if they did they were in error and they would be the subject of prosecution, not her. No special treatment for Clinton is involved. The classified material thing is a strawman created to deceive YOU. The only real issue is the records-keeping, but the republicans violated that so flagrantly and wilfully during the previous administration that that argument actually makes Clinton look good by comparison.
Well, to take a cynical view, consider this plan:
1. Establish rocket company that can send stuff to Mars
2. Send 100 or so humans to Mars
3. OMG they're going to die, but we don't have any more money to send them supplies!
4. Profit!!
Though I admit, if you wanted to force the hand of society into creating an interplanetary civilization, you would use basically the same strategy if you had the ability to do step 1. I think this is one of the ideas explored in "The Martian" -- society appears to be much more interested in drama than either science or progress. You may note that the people look a lot like hostages in this scenario, regardless of whether they are willing or not.
It's called the race to the bottom. The "don't be evil" motto was based on the idea that users would not just offer up their personal information without some proof that it would not be misused. It turns out this was not true. People will upload their most personal information (and that of their closest friends and even their children, which is even worse) for what amounts to services worth less than $100 a year. It's sickening.
For personal email might suggest hover.com. But I think there are many service that will provide email service that is not being data-mined for an amount any smartphone user would barely notice in their yearly budget.
I had a battery recall on a NVIDIA tablet and the return kit was a fireproof box that required ground shipping. And they weren't exploding, just failing early. This is standard procedure for any defective li-ion battery.
Unfortunately there isn't much overlap between danger addicts and people with the skills, foresight, and pragmatism necessary to make a mars colony work.
That's not to say there are no good candidates for colonists, they just aren't like the guy that you're talking about. They are more like our current U.S. astronauts for whom getting a Ph.D. is just something they do along the way because they have a ridiculous amount of discipline and aptitude. There are many more qualified applicants than there are spots for them to fill, and there would probably be even more if the space program were more real. Interplanetary viability of the species is something that even very pragmatic and intelligent people are willing to risk their lives for.
Actually he was pretty clear that the fraud was the issue, not the politics. So stop pretending.
I think the concern is that the Tesla system may not have even identified the semi trailer across the lane as an obstacle at all because it is not clear that the Tesla's brakes were applied prior to the collision. Any defensive human driver would have taken note of the truck in the turn lane before it even started its turn and prepared to take action if it turned unexpectedly, even if they were unable to stop or swerve in the end. Tesla's system was definitely unaware of the truck until it entered the lane, and was most likely incapable of determining the actual structure and size of the obstacle.
But the big problem everyone is worried about is right there in the first sentence of your link. The article calls it a "self-driving car" which even Tesla (except for their CEO in promotion mode) takes pains to say it is NOT. Treating a Tesla on autopilot as a self-driving car is extremely dangerous to the driver and all motorists around them. The sensor package and software is not designed for that usage.
Thanks for an actual description of how it behaves. It sounds like any reasonably conscientious safe driver would stop using the autopilot feature in most situations after some testing because it is obviously unsafe except in a fairly tightly constrained set of situations. This is why autonomous trucks or designated autonomous lanes make sense with this level of automation. For commercial trucks, the driver can be trained on what the appropriate use cases are and held responsible for inappropriate usage, and in the designated lanes case the situation can be constrained to within safe parameters or supplementary information can be provided to the autonomous system. Expecting people to just discover the appropriate use cases without training is (was?) just a bad idea and will get people killed.
This completely misunderstands NASA's role. NASA is a space research agency, not a rocket company or a launch vendor. As others have said, NASA being highly supportive of SpaceX means that what SpaceX is doing and what NASA is doing ARE THE SAME THING. NASA runs space missions. If they choose an innovative launch vendor like SpaceX, then they are doing exactly what you want them to. The fact that congress is so pork-oriented that a huge fraction of NASA's budget is mandated to pay for another launch system that has no clear purpose is not NASA's fault. I want NASA to focus on running good space missions, which may have been about rocketry in the 60's but today it's about spacecraft and the rocketry is just the delivery service.
There is only one Internet. That's what the capital is for. It is a proper noun indicating the network of all globally routable addresses. If the people at the AP are so clueless as to not know that, no wonder the news is so bad.
Of course they use the more direct size measurements when they are available. It sounds like those 102 are the control sample, in which they have both WISE measurements (IR light) and a more direct measurement of size. They don't need a thermal model for those objects. And when just reporting object size they should report the size inferred from previous radar or occultation if that is available.
It sounds to me like this guy developed a thermal model that doesn't work for objects for which the size is known from other methods. The obvious conclusion is that the thermal model is not good, but apparently he has instead decided that it's a vast conspiracy to hide the true sizes of asteroids. I'm sure the WISE and NEOWISE teams would be happy for someone to develop an improved thermal model if theirs is only accurate to 15% for objects with known size. However, this appears to be a case of this crazy outsider trying to push a worse thermal model through outrageous and insulting press releases. Not exactly how science is supposed to work.
Somehow I don't think another study debunking the association of autism with vaccination is going to make any difference, so I think it's fine the CDC wouldn't waste money on it. And you don't even appear to be able to state your conclusion correctly, since autism's correlation with autism is pretty meaningless, I assume you meant autism's correlation with vaccination rate. I'm pretty sure it is well known that risk of autism increases with the mother's age.
I am unsure the subchapter you quote applies in this case because the FBI is not compelling a pre-market system change. They are compelling assistance after the fact for an individual device. I personally think it would be better for us all if Apple loses because it should be made abundantly clear that a device that is vulnerable to a firmware replacement attack is not secure, even if the manufacturer is the only entity that can sign a new firmware. As far as technically possible, the device owner's data security should not depend on the manufacturer's ability to resist legal action (or their ability to resist a well-resourced hacker, which is much more dangerous).
The piece of information that you are missing is that the UK has already gutted its internal research funding. The UK government is not going to suddenly become more friendly to science funding even if the need to pay the EU goes away. As far as I know, one of the few good sources of academic research funding in the UK currently is from the EU.