Please take in account that the vote is in Switzerland, where the political ecosystem and the implication of the population into it is very, very, different from the USA.
You can observe that this actual vote is a popular initiative against the government, so don't wast your time voting for a government: just force it to change the law like the people wants. This is how the direct democracy work: the people own the government.
Yes, and this is how the initiative is supposed to produce: this will make the big money pump more difficult to hide into a single structure. Take in account that the "low-pay grunt work" is often the most lucrative that allow the profit of a few in the "gobs of wealth" part. By decoupling the pump into separate companies, the "low" part remain profitable, while the "high" part will face a problem.
This depend of the kind of company. While this is very true for a lot of big companies, in a country like Switzerland, the majority of the PIB is moved by smalls companies where the few shareholders are also the executive of the company. The initiative will in fact only affect a few very big companies where the executive and the shareholders are very decoupled.
If the government adds a regulation, somebody will find a way around it.
Certainly true, but this is still a progress, as some will comply to it and the others that escape it will be more visible and the target of the next regulation.
Earth act as a shield that protect memory from radiation coming from the other side of the planet. In addition, the collision probability of a particle is proportional to the distance of his travel into the atmosphere, so there is more probability on the ground to be hit by particle coming from the vertical. On a desktop computer the RAM is usually oriented vertically and exposing his shorter side from the top: the exposed area is very small for radiation coming from the top. Not that because of the motherboard orientation, this is also true for a lot of component mounted into it. On a server, the RAM might be vertical, but expose his largest side from the top. RAM mounted with a angle are even worse. Not that on server the motherboard is oriented horizontally, exposing most of the components with there biggest area from the top. So it's not a big surprise that the caches inside the CPU is hit more often on a server than in a desktop computer.
Write a cod that reserve several Go of memory on a non ECC memory, set it, and in a infinite loop check that all bits are set. Now try approach various type of arc lamps to the memory and count the number of hours (or minutes if you have a strong source) before a bit is detected to be zero. Now retry the experience with different RAM orientation.
I never stated that the US used the GPS against europeans. What trip did you smoke to see this claim in my message and to roll your eyes like this ?
As for the spying, the problem is not the shared intelligence that have been agreed for some security concern. The problem is the secret massive quantity of information that bias the equilibrium of the knowledge in the commercial competition. The security is a pretext in most of the case, but there is no security goal in spying the UN, top of governments, and top of executives. The real goal is the money.
Galileo... will inform users within seconds of any satellite failure, making it suitable for safety-critical applications such as guiding cars, running trains and landing aircraft. "
This is something GPS, GLONASS does not offer... the ability to inform users that there is a satellite failure. This is a huge advantage. Because of this GALILEO can be used in the future in airplanes as a primary navigation system.
Please note that this feature is already implemented since a decade by the EGNOS network. EGNOS monitor the GPS signal (and maybe the Glonass signal, this was planned but I am not certain if it was implemented), verify his resolution, and generate back to space two kind of informations that will be reflected by geostationary satellites: 1) a error correction factor to be applied to the GPS (or Glonass) signal to be more precise, 2) a safety signal that assert the signals validity. The EGNOS network analyze the signals each second and is able to alert all his users within 6 seconds after the measurable effect of a failure if I remember correctly.
Galileo is a complementary space segment that add a new signal to be monitored by the EGNOS network.
Europeans wants the control of there signal, that's so simple. There remember that the USA very easily break there promise that the dollar will always be convertible in gold. There are since under the economic control of the USA and don't wants to make this kind of mistake again. Last massive international spying scandal don't help any USA dependency, it's understandable. Complex dependencies have been part of situations that have degenerated. The history is full of facts like this. We are allies, each with our own autonomy where we can, so that we can play nice together.
In a other scale, just imagine that all your internet connectivity fully depend on one of your friend that keep the control of everything and don't wants to let you get more control. Are you certain that you will not get a mixed feeling about this fiend in the long term ?
The Galileo is a old project started at the time when the GPS was really not trustable at all if your are not part of the USA military. Back to his time, USA military reserved any right to control the signal to lower his availability or his precision. Galileo was first a political move against this very real fact. This move somewhat changed the USA official claim by stating that the GPS signal will always be available without manual distortion. But this is only a claim. The pragmatic reality is that the USA military is still the only GPS operator. If there not comply with there claim, others will be unable to overcome the situation quickly. And this risk is so large, due to the very width economical implication, that no one is willing to be so dependent of a simple claim. To put this situation in a other perspective, just remember how the USA have obliterated there claim that the dollar will always be convertible in gold...
What the EU really wants is a decentralized network of operation so that if a minority of node try to be against the common interest, it can be denied by the rest of the network. EGNOS and Galileo was based from the start to sustain this mode of operation. I known this, as I have managed the team that have build the hardware of the first generation of the ENOS routers. No single node is essential to grant the global network operation. If the USA will have bring something similar on the table for the evolution of the GPS, then maybe Galileo will not be build today.
But the goal is really high, a GPS under an UN protectorate is clearly not enough, as the center of operation remain centralized in the USA military and the UN is actually really not a plausible body to react quickly to a crisis, not counting the bias introduced by the veto of a few players or by the high count of small countries.
Automation work very well in fully tested conditions and bring many advantage in term of safety, cost and comfort. The problem is that the real life is not always contained into the fully tested conditions, and that even with an massive and continuous development effort, this assertion will never be proved false.
The current state of the aircraft operation is that basically the human endorse the full responsibility to engage the automation, monitor his work, disable it in case it is not appropriate, and manually operate the aircraft. This is manly because the today automation level don't include the capabilities to replace the human for those meta-tasks. But there is technically no reason to not includes them, and I believe that the future automation will take this direction. The consequence is that the human will have even less opportunities to operate an aircraft in sustainables conditions and that the remaining out of tested condition case will be so unmanageables situations that only a few exceptional pilots will eventually be able to survive. Until this extreme level of automation is in operation, we will inevitably see pilot error due to untrained operation like in the AF443, like in Kazan a few day ago, like many others accidents...
What is important to understand here is that the concept of "untrained operation" (or not enough) for an human is not so different from the concept of "untested condition" for an automatic system. From the aircraft essential operations like aerodynamic and motors, this make no difference if the action (or inaction) in from a human or from a computer. The point is to how to know what is the good action to do at each time in the operation. The only solution here it to have a very very depth knowledge in a lot of specific fields, a massive quantity of information to choose from, and a very quick reaction time to analyse all of them. Human brain can archive fantastic things from the eyes of others humans, but have still several hug limitations. He is specifically unable to focus on a task for a long time, sensible to external stress, limited in his precision and repeatability, and usually slow and error prone in untrained operation. An automation yield better result for most of those metrics, but is completely unable to handle untrained operations (out of tested conditions).
Did you get the idea ? Having a slow and error prone human trying to resolve untrained operation is better than having only an automation that will do nothing relevant at all. This is what we commonly call intelligence: trying to solve something new. Just a note: while our human body have evolved to integrate some basic survival action generator in case of emergency situation, there are really not effective for an today aircraft operation; don't mix them with the required intelligence. At this stage you maybe feel the problem: Out of the automation tested conditions, automation is for nothing, and human is a mediocre performer, but we have no other choice yet. Having the pilot trained to replace the automation working into tested conditions is not the solution, because the real problem don't lie into the tested conditions, but outside of them.
Now a level higher. Training a pilot on a unexpected situation is a long process. From a very general point of view, you can decompose this process into some basic parts: 1) recognize the situation; 2) select the appropriate action; 3) do the selected action. In practice this is implemented into a written procedure and the pilot train this procedure. What is important to understand here is that this way of training the pilot is to make an unexpected situation managed more by his experience than by his intelligence, because experience is fast, while intelligence is slow. We essentially try to extend the "tested condition" manageable by his brain, much like we can extend the tested condition of an automate. I predict that in the future, the computers will be less limited than the human brain in the extension of the teste
I don't care or have any interest in the private fact of the others
Really? Not even a rival, like a coworker with whom you were competing for a promotion or a political opponent? Not somebody who wronged you, and against whom you want revenge? Not someone holding beliefs with which you disagreed, who therefore "deserves" to be punished? None of those things?
I have learned in my life that using those methods bring nothing positive in the long term. I have a couple of persons that conflict with me since years, I have now a lawyer that moderate them and keep me more calm. Nothing in the process involve there privacy. In fact I prefer to ignore them a much as possible.
I don't care or have any interest in the private fact of the others, a long as there facts is not in the public interest. If we now need to protect our privacy, this is because some wants it. Who are there and for what purpose ?
Strategically, this mean that it's useless to fight the robots. The only valuable target is the peoples that control the robots. The net effect is that the combat will move from the battlefield to directly the highest rank of the army. Be no naive, the army very well understand this, so if there use robots, this is in situation where the highest rank have no risk to do so. Obviously this schema is designed not for war between two army, but to massacre a civil population.
I don't believe that limiting the number of edit per day will have any impact in case of edit ware, because it's too simple to use many different account. Wikipedia should not allow to delete information so easily and so will force to express the different point of view that exists on a subject.
Denying a war has never be a solution to end a war and will never be.
Slashdot Mirror
Please take in account that the vote is in Switzerland, where the political ecosystem and the implication of the population into it is very, very, different from the USA.
You can observe that this actual vote is a popular initiative against the government, so don't wast your time voting for a government: just force it to change the law like the people wants. This is how the direct democracy work: the people own the government.
Yes, and this is how the initiative is supposed to produce: this will make the big money pump more difficult to hide into a single structure. Take in account that the "low-pay grunt work" is often the most lucrative that allow the profit of a few in the "gobs of wealth" part. By decoupling the pump into separate companies, the "low" part remain profitable, while the "high" part will face a problem.
Your example is a private case, not a regulation.
This is already done in Switzerland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum_%22against_rip-off_salaries%22
This depend of the kind of company. While this is very true for a lot of big companies, in a country like Switzerland, the majority of the PIB is moved by smalls companies where the few shareholders are also the executive of the company. The initiative will in fact only affect a few very big companies where the executive and the shareholders are very decoupled.
If the government adds a regulation, somebody will find a way around it.
Certainly true, but this is still a progress, as some will comply to it and the others that escape it will be more visible and the target of the next regulation.
It's difficult to change this kind of situation and the process will take many steps. Actually the 1:12 initiative is the second step, the first was the Minder initiative ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum_%22against_rip-off_salaries%22 ) that has been voted with a comfortable 68% of yes.
Earth act as a shield that protect memory from radiation coming from the other side of the planet. In addition, the collision probability of a particle is proportional to the distance of his travel into the atmosphere, so there is more probability on the ground to be hit by particle coming from the vertical. On a desktop computer the RAM is usually oriented vertically and exposing his shorter side from the top: the exposed area is very small for radiation coming from the top. Not that because of the motherboard orientation, this is also true for a lot of component mounted into it. On a server, the RAM might be vertical, but expose his largest side from the top. RAM mounted with a angle are even worse. Not that on server the motherboard is oriented horizontally, exposing most of the components with there biggest area from the top. So it's not a big surprise that the caches inside the CPU is hit more often on a server than in a desktop computer.
Write a cod that reserve several Go of memory on a non ECC memory, set it, and in a infinite loop check that all bits are set. Now try approach various type of arc lamps to the memory and count the number of hours (or minutes if you have a strong source) before a bit is detected to be zero. Now retry the experience with different RAM orientation.
I never stated that the US used the GPS against europeans. What trip did you smoke to see this claim in my message and to roll your eyes like this ?
As for the spying, the problem is not the shared intelligence that have been agreed for some security concern. The problem is the secret massive quantity of information that bias the equilibrium of the knowledge in the commercial competition. The security is a pretext in most of the case, but there is no security goal in spying the UN, top of governments, and top of executives. The real goal is the money.
Now that Gnome 2 is no more, there is chance that MATE and/or XFCE get mainstream audience. The today decision is a step in that direction.
But not secure to use from a political point of view.
Galileo ... will inform users within seconds of any satellite failure, making it suitable for safety-critical applications such as guiding cars, running trains and landing aircraft. "
This is something GPS, GLONASS does not offer... the ability to inform users that there is a satellite failure. This is a huge advantage. Because of this GALILEO can be used in the future in airplanes as a primary navigation system.
Please note that this feature is already implemented since a decade by the EGNOS network. EGNOS monitor the GPS signal (and maybe the Glonass signal, this was planned but I am not certain if it was implemented), verify his resolution, and generate back to space two kind of informations that will be reflected by geostationary satellites: 1) a error correction factor to be applied to the GPS (or Glonass) signal to be more precise, 2) a safety signal that assert the signals validity. The EGNOS network analyze the signals each second and is able to alert all his users within 6 seconds after the measurable effect of a failure if I remember correctly.
Galileo is a complementary space segment that add a new signal to be monitored by the EGNOS network.
Don't invert the reality:
US military try to police the world by involving others EU countries.
Not shutting GPS signal off, ok but it was not designed to be altered this way.
Please read this instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Selective_availability
Europeans wants the control of there signal, that's so simple.
There remember that the USA very easily break there promise that the dollar will always be convertible in gold.
There are since under the economic control of the USA and don't wants to make this kind of mistake again.
Last massive international spying scandal don't help any USA dependency, it's understandable.
Complex dependencies have been part of situations that have degenerated. The history is full of facts like this.
We are allies, each with our own autonomy where we can, so that we can play nice together.
In a other scale, just imagine that all your internet connectivity fully depend on one of your friend that keep the control of everything and don't wants to let you get more control. Are you certain that you will not get a mixed feeling about this fiend in the long term ?
The Galileo is a old project started at the time when the GPS was really not trustable at all if your are not part of the USA military. Back to his time, USA military reserved any right to control the signal to lower his availability or his precision. Galileo was first a political move against this very real fact. This move somewhat changed the USA official claim by stating that the GPS signal will always be available without manual distortion. But this is only a claim. The pragmatic reality is that the USA military is still the only GPS operator. If there not comply with there claim, others will be unable to overcome the situation quickly. And this risk is so large, due to the very width economical implication, that no one is willing to be so dependent of a simple claim. To put this situation in a other perspective, just remember how the USA have obliterated there claim that the dollar will always be convertible in gold...
What the EU really wants is a decentralized network of operation so that if a minority of node try to be against the common interest, it can be denied by the rest of the network. EGNOS and Galileo was based from the start to sustain this mode of operation. I known this, as I have managed the team that have build the hardware of the first generation of the ENOS routers. No single node is essential to grant the global network operation. If the USA will have bring something similar on the table for the evolution of the GPS, then maybe Galileo will not be build today.
But the goal is really high, a GPS under an UN protectorate is clearly not enough, as the center of operation remain centralized in the USA military and the UN is actually really not a plausible body to react quickly to a crisis, not counting the bias introduced by the veto of a few players or by the high count of small countries.
First sorry for my English.
Automation work very well in fully tested conditions and bring many advantage in term of safety, cost and comfort. The problem is that the real life is not always contained into the fully tested conditions, and that even with an massive and continuous development effort, this assertion will never be proved false.
The current state of the aircraft operation is that basically the human endorse the full responsibility to engage the automation, monitor his work, disable it in case it is not appropriate, and manually operate the aircraft. This is manly because the today automation level don't include the capabilities to replace the human for those meta-tasks. But there is technically no reason to not includes them, and I believe that the future automation will take this direction. The consequence is that the human will have even less opportunities to operate an aircraft in sustainables conditions and that the remaining out of tested condition case will be so unmanageables situations that only a few exceptional pilots will eventually be able to survive. Until this extreme level of automation is in operation, we will inevitably see pilot error due to untrained operation like in the AF443, like in Kazan a few day ago, like many others accidents...
What is important to understand here is that the concept of "untrained operation" (or not enough) for an human is not so different from the concept of "untested condition" for an automatic system. From the aircraft essential operations like aerodynamic and motors, this make no difference if the action (or inaction) in from a human or from a computer. The point is to how to know what is the good action to do at each time in the operation. The only solution here it to have a very very depth knowledge in a lot of specific fields, a massive quantity of information to choose from, and a very quick reaction time to analyse all of them. Human brain can archive fantastic things from the eyes of others humans, but have still several hug limitations. He is specifically unable to focus on a task for a long time, sensible to external stress, limited in his precision and repeatability, and usually slow and error prone in untrained operation. An automation yield better result for most of those metrics, but is completely unable to handle untrained operations (out of tested conditions).
Did you get the idea ? Having a slow and error prone human trying to resolve untrained operation is better than having only an automation that will do nothing relevant at all. This is what we commonly call intelligence: trying to solve something new. Just a note: while our human body have evolved to integrate some basic survival action generator in case of emergency situation, there are really not effective for an today aircraft operation; don't mix them with the required intelligence. At this stage you maybe feel the problem: Out of the automation tested conditions, automation is for nothing, and human is a mediocre performer, but we have no other choice yet. Having the pilot trained to replace the automation working into tested conditions is not the solution, because the real problem don't lie into the tested conditions, but outside of them.
Now a level higher. Training a pilot on a unexpected situation is a long process. From a very general point of view, you can decompose this process into some basic parts: 1) recognize the situation; 2) select the appropriate action; 3) do the selected action. In practice this is implemented into a written procedure and the pilot train this procedure. What is important to understand here is that this way of training the pilot is to make an unexpected situation managed more by his experience than by his intelligence, because experience is fast, while intelligence is slow. We essentially try to extend the "tested condition" manageable by his brain, much like we can extend the tested condition of an automate. I predict that in the future, the computers will be less limited than the human brain in the extension of the teste
Really? Not even a rival, like a coworker with whom you were competing for a promotion or a political opponent? Not somebody who wronged you, and against whom you want revenge? Not someone holding beliefs with which you disagreed, who therefore "deserves" to be punished? None of those things?
I have learned in my life that using those methods bring nothing positive in the long term. I have a couple of persons that conflict with me since years, I have now a lawyer that moderate them and keep me more calm. Nothing in the process involve there privacy. In fact I prefer to ignore them a much as possible.
I don't care or have any interest in the private fact of the others, a long as there facts is not in the public interest.
If we now need to protect our privacy, this is because some wants it. Who are there and for what purpose ?
Your are right (verified on my own device).
So:
Nokia 770
Nokia N800
Nokia N810
Nokia N900
Nokia N950 (never sold)
Nokia N9
The N810 was my favorite to do SSH session. Still hard to find something comparable today.
Take in account that less than 10% of past Nokia customers are willing to switch to Windows Phone. 90% of them have switched to Android or iOS.
Err, Replace the (n990) by (N950).
Actually this was: N770, N800, N810, N900, (n990), N9.
Strategically, this mean that it's useless to fight the robots. The only valuable target is the peoples that control the robots. The net effect is that the combat will move from the battlefield to directly the highest rank of the army. Be no naive, the army very well understand this, so if there use robots, this is in situation where the highest rank have no risk to do so. Obviously this schema is designed not for war between two army, but to massacre a civil population.
Will all those robots be enough to fight against the vast numbers of future angry ex-military unemployed there replace ?
I don't believe that limiting the number of edit per day will have any impact in case of edit ware, because it's too simple to use many different account. Wikipedia should not allow to delete information so easily and so will force to express the different point of view that exists on a subject.
Denying a war has never be a solution to end a war and will never be.