One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.
Not hard-pressed: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses 1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege. 2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use. 3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest. 4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile. 5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.
IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.
Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.
Agreed on the DRM, disagree on the war zone children. * Children in war zones should not be combatants, they should be civilians. Any child in a war zone who is acting as a combatant is being maltreated, or ill-used; definition 2. * Civilians are non-combatants, and so should not be getting injured. A civilian being injured due to wartime activities is being "hurt or injure[d] by maltreatment"; definition 2.
I don't think that BitZtream exceeded the definition; it seems to me he got it spot-on.
There actually are people actively campaigning for the speed limit culture in the U.S. to be changed. There's not a lot of support for it, but if you want to be part of the solution check out the National Motorists Association and join the cause!
I don't think either AvitarX pr Pieroxy are committing the Gambler's Fallacy; if anything, AvitarX is doing the exact opposite. He's looking at 500 die rolls, none of which are a "1", and concluding that there is a greater likelihood that the die is not fairly weighted.
Is there a word for this? I'm not strong on my statistics, but I hear a lot of people talking about Bayesian analysis being like this.
If nothing else, actuaries at insurance companies would agree with AvitarX that 250,000 miles of accident-free driving is evidence of him being a lower accident risk, and would give him a discount on his rates as a result.
Some of the other posts in this thread do a great job of explaining the Dunning–Kruger effect as related to driving, and it doesn't seem to me that AvitarX is suffering from that, based on his stated evidence and how circumspect he's being about calling himself a good driver.
You must be using the industry definition of "Quality", i.e. compliance with quality standards like ISO 9001. Your comment reminds me of a business plan, "Monkey Maid Service", made by an engineer friend of mine:
Step 1: Purchase a supply of monkeys, monkey housing, and monkey chow from traceable sources, documenting the origins of every piece of material involved. Step 2: Draft a standard process for "Performing maid service" using the monkeys purchased in step 1. If I recall correctly, his rough draft of this process included "dress the monkeys in French maid costumes, then release them in the house for the period of time specified in the contract". Step 3: Have supervision in place to ensure work performance follows documented procedure, and record performance metrics (% monkeys dressed as French maids, deviation from contract time) for auditing purposes. Step 4: Advertize the service as ISO 9001 compliant.*
If every can of Budweiser tasting the same is your definition of quality, then sure, it's a quality product. By the way, my friend has a maid service you may be interested in using after your next party.
*I've probably missed a few crucial 9001 compliance steps; quality geeks, please don't crucify me over that;)
Touché. You're right, of course. In the future I'll perhaps reserve my mod points for people who both have good ideas AND disagree with me. =P
When I responded, though, it was at a score of 1; its current rating of 5:informative suggests that it was underrated at that point. I would have gone with "insightful", and not felt too bad about it - historical perspective sharply highlighting the current political climate I think is worth the up-mod.
Maybe I'm being dense, but how is an error code (intended for remote coffee pot control) that indicates the status "I'm a teapot" relevant to indicating a government-initiated content block?
The big reason this will never hit my TV screen is that the teams don't want us to understand what really went on during the plays. This technology may get used, and may become available to the teams who played in the game, but the teams will actively block access to the general public. There are already many cameras on the field that give easier-to-understand views than we see on TV, and we never see footage from those, either.
On a side note, I've been around long enough to realize that the editors can't keep track of what was posted yesterday (let alone two years ago), but somehow I was still surprised to notice that today's article and the one I linked were both posted by Timothy. Oh, well, stay classy, Tim.
How often have people placed a tool at work in their pocket, found it when they got home,and failed to return it due to fear of firing?
It never occurred to me anyone should have a fear of that. Why would returning something to its rightful owner/place be punished? If someone were to return to me something of mine that they took, then I'd think of them as honest and trustworthy for returning it instead of keeping it.
I have a picture in my head of a sociopathic boss chuckling to himself in the soundproof office, "I'll fire this guy, then NOBODY will ever bring my lost/stolen property BACK to me, EVER AGAIN!!!! BWAHAHAH!" It just doesn't scan, and seems quite comical.
. . . people don't tend to lick, sniff or rub their phone in their eyes.
No, but they tend to touch their phones with their fingers. And touch their eyes with their fingers. I'm watching a co-worker poke himself in the eye right now. I'll be generous and assume he washed his hands after using the restroom, but if he's the type to text on the toilet ($DEITY I hope not) I think there's a risk there.
An anti-bacterial surface (like the titanium dioxide mentioned elsewhere) would be a benefit for a too-large-for-my-comfort segment of smartphone users.
Why are you rejecting out of hand the two best suggestions I could think of? I'd encourage you to reconsider that position.
* Everyone I've ever heard express regrets about their career started with "I wish I'd spent more time with my family".
* I can't think of a single time-wasting activity done outside of work that wouldn't qualify as a hobby. Exercise? Yep. Gaming? Yep. Home improvement? Yep. Writing a novel? Yep. Fishing? Yep. Transcendental meditation? You betcha. [1]
For each person the answer to "what should I do" is different. The way to answer it is to think of any time you've ever said "I wish I could do that" or "I'd do that if I had more time", then go and do it. For me, a while ago, it was knitting armor out of stainless steel. I finished one shirt, am halfway through another, and have enjoyed making jewelry for my wife as small projects. More recently I've expanded that skill using knot-tying techniques (it becomes challenging when you use stainless steel instead of rope or softer metals). I can't tell you what will float your personal boat.
What I can tell you, though, is to do what you've always wanted to do. Figure out what that is, then do it.
Also, for everyone else who doesn't suddenly have 8+ extra hours in their day, I'd give you the same advice: 1. Decide what's important to you 2. Do that.
What I've found is that whatever I really want I can make time and find resources for, regardless of my work schedule or other circumstances. I still waste too much time in each day and money on things that aren't really important. When I decide that there's something I really want to learn or to do I can cut back on video games/TV/sleep if necessary.
Don't wait to do what's most important. Start today.
[1] Incidentally, going the exercise/meditation route in addition to whatever else you do is likely to do wonders for the damage to your body and psyche inflicted by long hours in the server room. Give it some thought.
Then we should see a very bright border as matter and anti-matter annihilate on the edges. As far as I know, that doesn't exist so being a bubble of matter in anti-matter doesn't seem likely.
Like, say, a nearly-uniform wash of electromagnetic radiation, apparently emanating from every observable point in the sky? I'd be willing to consider matter-antimatter annihilation at the universe's border as a possible explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Since objects at the edge of the observable universe are already redshifted to near-invisibility I'd expect that the gamma they emit would be similarly redshifted.
Having said that, I'd need to hear a really good explanation for why this annihilation exactly matches the spectral distribution for blackbody radiation at 2.7260 ± 0.0013 K before I'd totally swallow it as a replacement for the big bang theory. But I won't go around demanding that funding be cut from a bubble-universe researcher, either.
"I think we'll see products in the market by the Christmas season in 2014," Ravencraft said. "The companies have to build silicon - device, host, bridge and hub silicon."
So it looks to be quite a ways out. Still, I'd love to see a video output spec that doesn't have mandatory DRM. I didn't see any mention of HDMI in the article, so there's a slim chance of this new interface not being broken by design...
Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.
(emphasis added)
I disagree, and I'll give a clear counter-example. I believe in natural rights, specifically that life, liberty, and property are rights inherent to every living human. A robber disagrees with me, and is happy to relieve me of my property at gunpoint. How will this situation resolve itself?
* I calmly assert my natural rights, and the robber says, "oh, man!" and slinks away like Swiper the fox * I calmly assert my natural rights, The robber shoots me and takes both my property and my life * I give my property to the robber and think myself lucky to retain my life * I draw my concealed firearm and encourage the robber to choose a different lifestyle
The first example is rather unlikely.
In the second example my belief in natural rights and an inherently violent resolution coexist perfectly, to the benefit of the robber.
In the third example I dare say that I've abandoned my belief in my natural rights in order to avoid violence. This is the correct response in many circumstances; I've heard many concealed firearm bearers say that "here's my wallet, take it and go" is a safe alternative to a gunfight, and one that should be seriously considered. It is, however, not optimal - I'd really rather keep all of my natural rights (both life and property in this case).
I believe that the fourth example is a proper example of maintaining my belief in my natural rights while offering an inherently violent resolution to conflict. Violent resolution is an option whether I'm armed or not, but it's only an option for the robber if I'm not. When I am armed I have the choice of defending my natural rights.
Why should I even be worried about the natural rights of someone actively depriving me of mine?
OK, you said a lot of things I agree with, and a lot of things I strongly disagree with. Each of your statements stand fairly well on their own, so I'll group them together for convenience of discussion.
The constitution is in place for a reason. Laws are made for reasons. . . Freedom does come at a price. Having what we have has come at the cost of many lives. . . I think people need to truly look around and understand why they have the freedoms they have today.
So far we're in perfect agreement. I'll return to this later.
If you constrain law enforcement and the military too much, bad things could happen to our country. . . Law enforcement is responsible for taking peoples lives when the bad American is going to do something bad, and there are no other alternatives other than to take the bad person's life. There could easily be a time when law enforcement cannot or does not have the ability to act against bad Americans, and the military with their drones may be the only thing able to deal with these bad people. By making a law that says drones cannot be used to kill an American could easily cost another 3000 Americans their lives. This is a very complicated world we live in. We sometimes need to do things we are not proud of to protect this country. . . You can be outraged at what Holder says, but at least understand why he is saying what he is saying.
Here we diverge almost completely after the first sentence. I'll go point-by-point:
Yes, bad things can happen. Doing worse things to prevent anything bad from happening is not an acceptable alternative. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm with the Dory character from Finding Nemo: it's not the Government's job to make sure that nothing bad ever happens.
Law enforcement's job is not to kill people before they commit crimes. Nor have The People of the United States given up their rights to self-defense; the use of deadly force is not restricted to the Executive Branch (under whose umbrella both the Military and Law Enforcement act). There is no department of pre-crime, nor should there ever be. Law enforcement's role is to uphold the law and prosecute violations. Your statement appears to support murdering suspects as a form of crime prevention, and you're frightening me.
You speculate a hypothetical situation where somehow only use of U.S. military power against its own citizens will keep 3000 other citizens safe. I find this highly implausible, but even if it weren't then use of the military on U.S. soil would still be a frightening prospect to be avoided at all costs (even the lives of 3000 civilians). Armies and civilians don't mix well, and both the Declaration of Independence and the Posse Comitatus act were written in reaction to bad results from such.
Yes, the world is complicated. I may agree that to address that complexity we need to do things we're not comfortable with, but I don't agree that we need to compromise our principles to live in a complex world. If such things as "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom of speech" are ever important then they're important all the time, not just when it's convenient or simple.
I think I do understand where Holder is coming from. I used to oppose the release of suspects whose guilt was proven via illegal searches. The fundamental question is this: "how much harm is done be releasing the guilty versus allowing Police more power to conduct searches?" I've moved over to wanting restricted police power, since I now believe that abuse of police power is the greater harm.
The constitution and our laws were written for a reason; it originally was to protect The People against abuses of power. The Ame
So... in the quote you have there... He had 88 miles left when he stopped... woke up, lost 30 miles, then drive 28 miles, and connected with 50 miles left.
My math is a little rusty, so help me out here... 88 - 30 - 28 = ?? The answer is 50 right?
Yes, your math is rusty:
88 - 30 - 28 = 30
On the trip from hotel to charger the range estimate dropped by 8 miles despite a traveled distance of 28 miles.
Yep, good catch! I thought I was responding to a different post (the 1. 1. 3. list), and didn't notice the missing list order marks. Boy, do I need sleep, that's two glaring mistakes in one post.
I dug through the css for the page, and I think I've figured it out: in about 5 different places in the style markup there is a callout for list-style: none outside none; which, when turned off, re-enables the list markings. So someone deliberately and redundantly ensured that your (and my) numbering wouldn't show up on an ordered list. Unordered lists still get bullets, go figure.
The purpose of the Patent is to allow the inventor make a profit without competition.
Absolutely wrong. The purpose of patents is to convince inventors to share their discoveries by offerring a temporary monopoly of such technology. Before patents, there were only trade secrets, and there were a lot of them. ..
Unfortunately, I hear too often about patent documents that fail to provide enough information for a typically skilled practitioner of the art to duplicate the result. Yeah, I know, [citation needed]; I don't have specific examples to give. What, though, is the difference between a patent document written in deliberately opaque language and a trade secret?
If patent applicants are actively working against the "share their discoveries" purpose of patents, then this benefit is also lost. Between the societal cost of patent litigation and the cost of distributed reverse-engineering of products sold, I'd prefer the reverse-engineering. Make reverse engineering explicitly legal, do away with patents, and I think we'd be much better off. It might encourage companies to retain their knowledgeable employees as a side benefit, too =P
Slashdot Mirror
One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.
Not hard-pressed:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse
tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.
IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.
Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.
Agreed on the DRM, disagree on the war zone children.
* Children in war zones should not be combatants, they should be civilians. Any child in a war zone who is acting as a combatant is being maltreated, or ill-used; definition 2.
* Civilians are non-combatants, and so should not be getting injured. A civilian being injured due to wartime activities is being "hurt or injure[d] by maltreatment"; definition 2.
I don't think that BitZtream exceeded the definition; it seems to me he got it spot-on.
There actually are people actively campaigning for the speed limit culture in the U.S. to be changed. There's not a lot of support for it, but if you want to be part of the solution check out the National Motorists Association and join the cause!
I don't think either AvitarX pr Pieroxy are committing the Gambler's Fallacy; if anything, AvitarX is doing the exact opposite. He's looking at 500 die rolls, none of which are a "1", and concluding that there is a greater likelihood that the die is not fairly weighted.
Is there a word for this? I'm not strong on my statistics, but I hear a lot of people talking about Bayesian analysis being like this.
If nothing else, actuaries at insurance companies would agree with AvitarX that 250,000 miles of accident-free driving is evidence of him being a lower accident risk, and would give him a discount on his rates as a result.
Some of the other posts in this thread do a great job of explaining the Dunning–Kruger effect as related to driving, and it doesn't seem to me that AvitarX is suffering from that, based on his stated evidence and how circumspect he's being about calling himself a good driver.
You must be using the industry definition of "Quality", i.e. compliance with quality standards like ISO 9001. Your comment reminds me of a business plan, "Monkey Maid Service", made by an engineer friend of mine:
Step 1: Purchase a supply of monkeys, monkey housing, and monkey chow from traceable sources, documenting the origins of every piece of material involved.
Step 2: Draft a standard process for "Performing maid service" using the monkeys purchased in step 1. If I recall correctly, his rough draft of this process included "dress the monkeys in French maid costumes, then release them in the house for the period of time specified in the contract".
Step 3: Have supervision in place to ensure work performance follows documented procedure, and record performance metrics (% monkeys dressed as French maids, deviation from contract time) for auditing purposes.
Step 4: Advertize the service as ISO 9001 compliant.*
If every can of Budweiser tasting the same is your definition of quality, then sure, it's a quality product. By the way, my friend has a maid service you may be interested in using after your next party.
*I've probably missed a few crucial 9001 compliance steps; quality geeks, please don't crucify me over that ;)
Touché. You're right, of course. In the future I'll perhaps reserve my mod points for people who both have good ideas AND disagree with me. =P
When I responded, though, it was at a score of 1; its current rating of 5:informative suggests that it was underrated at that point. I would have gone with "insightful", and not felt too bad about it - historical perspective sharply highlighting the current political climate I think is worth the up-mod.
Where are my mod points when I need them?
How soon we seem to have forgotten the lessons of the Cold War...
Maybe I'm being dense, but how is an error code (intended for remote coffee pot control) that indicates the status "I'm a teapot" relevant to indicating a government-initiated content block?
DIE-Fox?
The big reason this will never hit my TV screen is that the teams don't want us to understand what really went on during the plays. This technology may get used, and may become available to the teams who played in the game, but the teams will actively block access to the general public. There are already many cameras on the field that give easier-to-understand views than we see on TV, and we never see footage from those, either.
On a side note, I've been around long enough to realize that the editors can't keep track of what was posted yesterday (let alone two years ago), but somehow I was still surprised to notice that today's article and the one I linked were both posted by Timothy. Oh, well, stay classy, Tim.
Which is as much about theft as forgetfulness.
How often have people placed a tool at work in their pocket, found it when they got home ,and failed to return it due to fear of firing?
It never occurred to me anyone should have a fear of that. Why would returning something to its rightful owner/place be punished? If someone were to return to me something of mine that they took, then I'd think of them as honest and trustworthy for returning it instead of keeping it.
I have a picture in my head of a sociopathic boss chuckling to himself in the soundproof office, "I'll fire this guy, then NOBODY will ever bring my lost/stolen property BACK to me, EVER AGAIN!!!! BWAHAHAH!" It just doesn't scan, and seems quite comical.
. . . people don't tend to lick, sniff or rub their phone in their eyes.
No, but they tend to touch their phones with their fingers. And touch their eyes with their fingers. I'm watching a co-worker poke himself in the eye right now. I'll be generous and assume he washed his hands after using the restroom, but if he's the type to text on the toilet ($DEITY I hope not) I think there's a risk there.
An anti-bacterial surface (like the titanium dioxide mentioned elsewhere) would be a benefit for a too-large-for-my-comfort segment of smartphone users.
Why are you rejecting out of hand the two best suggestions I could think of? I'd encourage you to reconsider that position.
* Everyone I've ever heard express regrets about their career started with "I wish I'd spent more time with my family".
* I can't think of a single time-wasting activity done outside of work that wouldn't qualify as a hobby. Exercise? Yep. Gaming? Yep. Home improvement? Yep. Writing a novel? Yep. Fishing? Yep. Transcendental meditation? You betcha. [1]
For each person the answer to "what should I do" is different. The way to answer it is to think of any time you've ever said "I wish I could do that" or "I'd do that if I had more time", then go and do it. For me, a while ago, it was knitting armor out of stainless steel. I finished one shirt, am halfway through another, and have enjoyed making jewelry for my wife as small projects. More recently I've expanded that skill using knot-tying techniques (it becomes challenging when you use stainless steel instead of rope or softer metals). I can't tell you what will float your personal boat.
What I can tell you, though, is to do what you've always wanted to do. Figure out what that is, then do it.
Also, for everyone else who doesn't suddenly have 8+ extra hours in their day, I'd give you the same advice:
1. Decide what's important to you
2. Do that.
What I've found is that whatever I really want I can make time and find resources for, regardless of my work schedule or other circumstances. I still waste too much time in each day and money on things that aren't really important. When I decide that there's something I really want to learn or to do I can cut back on video games/TV/sleep if necessary.
Don't wait to do what's most important. Start today.
[1] Incidentally, going the exercise/meditation route in addition to whatever else you do is likely to do wonders for the damage to your body and psyche inflicted by long hours in the server room. Give it some thought.
FTFS:
it all looks like everything is up and to the right
I'm confused, is up and left an option? I'd love it if my graphs with negative slope indicated time travel instead of a decrease over time!
On the other hand, I love your analogy! I'm going to steal that and use it in future arguments, it's classic =)
Then we should see a very bright border as matter and anti-matter annihilate on the edges. As far as I know, that doesn't exist so being a bubble of matter in anti-matter doesn't seem likely.
Like, say, a nearly-uniform wash of electromagnetic radiation, apparently emanating from every observable point in the sky? I'd be willing to consider matter-antimatter annihilation at the universe's border as a possible explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Since objects at the edge of the observable universe are already redshifted to near-invisibility I'd expect that the gamma they emit would be similarly redshifted.
Having said that, I'd need to hear a really good explanation for why this annihilation exactly matches the spectral distribution for blackbody radiation at 2.7260 ± 0.0013 K before I'd totally swallow it as a replacement for the big bang theory. But I won't go around demanding that funding be cut from a bubble-universe researcher, either.
FTFA:
"I think we'll see products in the market by the Christmas season in 2014," Ravencraft said. "The companies have to build silicon - device, host, bridge and hub silicon."
So it looks to be quite a ways out. Still, I'd love to see a video output spec that doesn't have mandatory DRM. I didn't see any mention of HDMI in the article, so there's a slim chance of this new interface not being broken by design...
I use bookmarklets to handle rot-13 encoding when I find it. Highlight, click bookmark, read as plain text. Simple.
Enjoy!
So, a Master's degree, then?
Having it in your map in the 14th century is a better claim than, "I have bigger guns than you, it's mine now."
Perhaps, but it's a much more practical claim than the ancient map, especially when coupled with "I've been standing on it for the last 100 years"...
Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.
(emphasis added)
I disagree, and I'll give a clear counter-example. I believe in natural rights, specifically that life, liberty, and property are rights inherent to every living human. A robber disagrees with me, and is happy to relieve me of my property at gunpoint. How will this situation resolve itself?
* I calmly assert my natural rights, and the robber says, "oh, man!" and slinks away like Swiper the fox
* I calmly assert my natural rights, The robber shoots me and takes both my property and my life
* I give my property to the robber and think myself lucky to retain my life
* I draw my concealed firearm and encourage the robber to choose a different lifestyle
The first example is rather unlikely.
In the second example my belief in natural rights and an inherently violent resolution coexist perfectly, to the benefit of the robber.
In the third example I dare say that I've abandoned my belief in my natural rights in order to avoid violence. This is the correct response in many circumstances; I've heard many concealed firearm bearers say that "here's my wallet, take it and go" is a safe alternative to a gunfight, and one that should be seriously considered. It is, however, not optimal - I'd really rather keep all of my natural rights (both life and property in this case).
I believe that the fourth example is a proper example of maintaining my belief in my natural rights while offering an inherently violent resolution to conflict. Violent resolution is an option whether I'm armed or not, but it's only an option for the robber if I'm not. When I am armed I have the choice of defending my natural rights.
Why should I even be worried about the natural rights of someone actively depriving me of mine?
OK, you said a lot of things I agree with, and a lot of things I strongly disagree with. Each of your statements stand fairly well on their own, so I'll group them together for convenience of discussion.
The constitution is in place for a reason. Laws are made for reasons. . . Freedom does come at a price. Having what we have has come at the cost of many lives. . . I think people need to truly look around and understand why they have the freedoms they have today.
So far we're in perfect agreement. I'll return to this later.
If you constrain law enforcement and the military too much, bad things could happen to our country. . . Law enforcement is responsible for taking peoples lives when the bad American is going to do something bad, and there are no other alternatives other than to take the bad person's life. There could easily be a time when law enforcement cannot or does not have the ability to act against bad Americans, and the military with their drones may be the only thing able to deal with these bad people. By making a law that says drones cannot be used to kill an American could easily cost another 3000 Americans their lives. This is a very complicated world we live in. We sometimes need to do things we are not proud of to protect this country. . . You can be outraged at what Holder says, but at least understand why he is saying what he is saying.
Here we diverge almost completely after the first sentence. I'll go point-by-point:
I think I do understand where Holder is coming from. I used to oppose the release of suspects whose guilt was proven via illegal searches. The fundamental question is this: "how much harm is done be releasing the guilty versus allowing Police more power to conduct searches?" I've moved over to wanting restricted police power, since I now believe that abuse of police power is the greater harm.
The constitution and our laws were written for a reason; it originally was to protect The People against abuses of power. The Ame
If the biggest problem you have with it is the battery life, then fix the problem - just replace the battery!
Since you're posting to Slashdot I'm going to assume you are willing to do some soldering if you have to.
Invest $15-25 and you can get 2x or 4x the battery life; that tablet only came with 2500 mAh if the other posters here guessed your model correctly.
Make sure the new cell will fit, then have at it!
So... in the quote you have there... He had 88 miles left when he stopped... woke up, lost 30 miles, then drive 28 miles, and connected with 50 miles left.
My math is a little rusty, so help me out here... 88 - 30 - 28 = ?? The answer is 50 right?
Yes, your math is rusty:
88 - 30 - 28 = 30
On the trip from hotel to charger the range estimate dropped by 8 miles despite a traveled distance of 28 miles.
Yep, good catch! I thought I was responding to a different post (the 1. 1. 3. list), and didn't notice the missing list order marks. Boy, do I need sleep, that's two glaring mistakes in one post.
I dug through the css for the page, and I think I've figured it out: in about 5 different places in the style markup there is a callout for list-style: none outside none; which, when turned off, re-enables the list markings. So someone deliberately and redundantly ensured that your (and my) numbering wouldn't show up on an ordered list. Unordered lists still get bullets, go figure.
The purpose of the Patent is to allow the inventor make a profit without competition.
Absolutely wrong. The purpose of patents is to convince inventors to share their discoveries by offerring a temporary monopoly of such technology. Before patents, there were only trade secrets, and there were a lot of them. . .
Unfortunately, I hear too often about patent documents that fail to provide enough information for a typically skilled practitioner of the art to duplicate the result. Yeah, I know, [citation needed]; I don't have specific examples to give. What, though, is the difference between a patent document written in deliberately opaque language and a trade secret?
If patent applicants are actively working against the "share their discoveries" purpose of patents, then this benefit is also lost. Between the societal cost of patent litigation and the cost of distributed reverse-engineering of products sold, I'd prefer the reverse-engineering. Make reverse engineering explicitly legal, do away with patents, and I think we'd be much better off. It might encourage companies to retain their knowledgeable employees as a side benefit, too =P