No. The current maintainer of MTR, Roger Wolff, does care. He's quite explicit in his email, reproduced in TFA. He's been maintaining the software since before WinMTR existed as well according to the MTR page.
Actually, the site reads "[WinMTR] was started as a clone for the popular Matt’s Traceroute (hence MTR) Linux/UNIX utility." That doesn't mean source code was necessarily copied, just that they wanted to duplicate MTR's functionality. However, Rob Shinn posted evidence that code has been copied in a comment to the summary's Palegray link. For instance, the lines
Real estate (land) titles are almost always in traditional units and changing those would be incredibly expensive.
Making new titles use both units doesn't seem like much of a burden, though I'm not very familiar with them.
Finally, it would be nice to have a "true metric" system for temperature, i.e. one where the "degrees" would allow for simplified thermodynamic calculations.
Kelvin and Celcius are at least just translated versions of each other. When temperature differences are needed, Celcius and Kelvin are equivalent. Also, I don't feel *too* guilty making science types convert their units. It's my nurse converting that dosage from English to metric that I'd like to prevent more.
There's nothing to indicate the document was "leaked"; it says "UNCLASSIFIED" on almost every page and the intro is written as if you aren't familiar with the relevant agencies.
The TechSpot article says, "According to the document, these steps include figuring out which employees might be most inclined to leak classified documents, by using psychiatrists and sociologists to assess their trustworthiness." No, the document does not say that. It asks agency heads "Do you use psychiatrist and sociologist to measure: Relative happiness as a means to gauge trustworthiness? Despondence and grumpiness as a means to gauge waning trustworthiness?" It does not explicitly tell them they should start doing so and it only lists gauging happiness, despondence, and grumpiness. Too bad it's not very sensational to say "the director of the OMB asked agency heads to consider if using psychiatrists and sociologists to measure trustworthiness in employees by gauging happiness and grumpiness would help prevent classified information leaks".
The TechSpot article says, "The memo also suggests that agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media they may have." From the memo, "Are all employees required to report their contacts with the media?", which is not the same.
I'm not defending or advocating these policies, I'm just saying the reporting is very poor and clearly meant to gain readers more than inform people.
Pirates eat bean, bean "distracts suspected pirates rather than harming them" and "makes it difficult for them to aim their AK-47['s] or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship." What's the problem?:)
the cockpit warning system sounded again, this time with a long "bong" that no one present could recall having heard before. This was the "all engines out" sound, an event that had never been simulated during training.
They immediately searched their emergency checklist for the section on flying the aircraft with both engines out, only to find that no such section existed.
I always thought it was supposed to be an Australian accent. Maybe it's closer to British? I remember in one ad they made fun of it--he was about to say where he was from and something interrupted him. I dunno how that fits into anything besides making the character memorable. But if you'll remember, the announcer at the end is a younger-middle-aged (probably white) male, which I imagine is the prime demographic for car insurance in my area.
It's advertising, obviously they are going to use the type of voice that their research (or just the anecdotes they happen to have heard) says is most effective for the demographics they are selling to.
Yes, I understand why they do it. I don't debate its effectiveness, I just bemoan its necessity.
I should also mention friction and air resistance should be at least approximately proportional to velocity, and work is force times distance, so in a given distance solar energy has to overcome work proportional to velocity trying to slow you down. At higher speeds you travel the same distance more quickly, so solar power needs to overcome the power of friction and air resistance ~quadratically related to velocity. That is, it gets much harder to go a little faster as speeds increase.
The sun only produces so much energy per unit area on earth. As I understand it, this vehicle uses solar power directly (without storage). Really, you could probably only hope for another order of magnitude or so before reaching the theoretical limit of perfectly efficient solar energy to kinetic energy transfer, and that upper limit is generous.
My point is solar power usage in situations like this has a definite upper limit of efficiency, which we're not *that* far away from.
I agree, their reporting is not rigorous. The first sentence, "61.5 million people in the US owned smartphones during the three months ending in November 2010", is saying the number of smartphone owners did not change by more than 100,000 for 3 solid months. The next clause of that sentence, "up 10 percent from the preceding three-month period", clearly contradicts this. They don't link their source, though they do at least say "according to comScore". I found a press release by comScore which appears to be the source of the table from the TechSpot article. Interestingly, the first sentence of the TechSpot article I quoted above appears verbatim in the comScore press release. Neither discusses how the numbers were compiled or possible sources of error or discrepancy with other, similar reports.
Really, it's poor reporting for TechSpot to plagiarize from comScore, and for comScore to report patently false information with insufficient discussion. And this is why I so often get mad when I read journalist's statistics.
Ads depress me for a similar reason. Announcer voices are male or female depending on what's being sold; homemaker-type products use white upper middle class-style actresses; life insurance commercials use old male announcers, unless it's the Gerber Life commercial (ironically showing right now) in which case it uses a young (but not too young) woman. Of course, these are generalizations and not strict rules, but the correlation is strong. Incidentally, I hate marketing. It seems to be a necessary evil, but I wish their manipulations were as transparent to everyone as they are to me. Maybe then ads would contain more actual content and less flash.
(Yes, this is off topic, but discussing the social security system's IT infrastructure isn't exactly thrilling conversation.)
I have to say, I'm imagining you playing an RTS or FPS while forming those opinions. You seem to value human life through the lens of the ability to respawn. Phrases like "own-side casualties" and "whacked a TeaPartista" make me think you see this as a game, with you in the role of strategic leader. Civil war (which is what you're advocating) is not a game, and when someone dies, they don't respawn. Without knowing more about you, I think "couch slug" is an appropriate handle.
Also, I do not wish you death even though I disagree with you, and if you wish me death for the same thing I strongly advise you to seek counseling. That level of hatred or disregard for human life is dangerous. It is also possible to have victory without defeat--when two sides work together for the same goal, neither has to be defeated.
Alright, but laws against murder don't prevent shoplifting either--they don't even inconvenience shoplifters. I don't see the difference between this sentence (which pretty clearly has no content) and your post. You seem to be trying to imply something, but I can't figure out what.... Maybe that gun laws are useless? That seems pretty clearly wrong--and even if not, it doesn't follow from what you've written.
Personally, I don't have a strong enough opinion on gun control to say much. Automatic weapons should be very difficult to obtain, but hand guns and hunting rifles--I dunno. I've never lived in a place with lots of violent crime so I can't really speak to guns as protection, and I don't hunt; nor have I been even distantly related to gun-related violence. My comment wasn't meant to necessarily imply I think this incident means we need tougher gun control, just that I imagine most people would use this situation as an example that gun control isn't strict enough.
I think that graphic underscores the need for more reasoned discussion and less fiery rhetoric in American politics, regardless of whether or not it was in any way involved in this shooting.
That's an interesting opinion. I personally find it to be either insane or trolling, but it's interesting regardless. You've used a gun crime as an example of why guns should be freely available--I think most people would go the opposite route and use this as an example of a need for stricter gun control laws.
It gets inconvenient having both. Mechanics have to use x mm or y/z'th inch wrenches; nurses convert from F to C, pounds to kg's, and feet/inches to meters all the time; NASA lost a mars orbiter a few years back because of a conversion mistake. English units are inconvenient and error prone in other ways, besides the fact that the rest of the world doesn't use them. Try calculating your BMI by hand--you'll need to convert feet+inches to inches, that to meters, and pounds to kg's. The extra feet+inches conversion requires multiplication by 12 instead of a decimal shift and needs to be done even if you use a formula combining the other two conversions into multiplication by a constant. Converting between pounds and tons, gallons and pints, and feet and miles have similar issues--it's just stupid to add random constant multiplications when decimal shifts could do the same job.
If the weather was reported in C and kph, speed limit signs used both mph and kph, and common body temperatures were taught in both C and F, we'd be well on our way to conversion. Even a slow conversion is fine with me--letting the older generations die out as newer ones use metric more and more will eventually cause a switch.
I intensely disliked my college bio course, in part because their reasoning was way too informal. The descriptions of cellular processes (protein synthesis comes to mind) didn't involve any of the nuclear physics I needed to really understand the material. They used analogies intended to simplify the truth into something memorizable instead of derivable.
I distinctly remember Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium getting taught as a gift from the gods. Come test time I couldn't for the life of me remember the assumptions that went into it. I just now looked them up and the assumptions are completely random, independent breeding, equal allele frequencies in both sexes, and that steady state has occurred. None of these is terribly complicated by itself, but they weren't emphasized at all. The formulae P(AA) = p^2, P(Aa) = 2pq, and P(aa) = q^2 were emphasized, which was all I needed for the homework, but I couldn't remember them or their assumptions come test time.
To be honest, that class was poor in other ways, which biased me against it all the more. It was badly organized and went from topic to topic almost randomly. Lecture attendance plummeted by the end of the semester, and a shocking number of those who did attend fell asleep (it was an early class). For all my dislike, I still feel sorry for the lecturers. I think ultimately, the class just wasn't interested in what they had to say and would have greatly preferred an extra hour in bed.
Incidentally we were never taught the carbon cycle. TFA seems to actually be referring to ecology instead of biology, though they overlap.
To a lot of people, college has become a way to stave off real life for four more years. As life expectancies have risen in the last century, people are having families later and working longer. It makes some sense we would also want to "grow up" more slowly.
College has been turning into the new high school for years. I think there will always be a place for top tier 4-year residential colleges, but the number of people in 4-year programs who could better spend their time elsewhere is high. Trade schools and "alternatives" to the traditional residential college are becoming more and more popular, so there's already some backlash reflecting the inefficiency of the current system. Why does a secretary need to know the major sources of plant mass, or the constellations visible from the southern hemisphere in winter, or calculus? Certainly some people innovate and could make use of such knowledge, but (and maybe I'm too cynical) most people just plod through life doing what they need to, solving problems a million other people have solved a million times before. They need only domain-specific knowledge and for the most part couldn't care less about anything else anyway. We may as well let a few percent of people change the world with new ideas and let everyone else simply be productive in a trained monkey sort of way--it seems like that's what everyone wants, anyway.
That's unhelpful. Even if you're right, you didn't say why, and you implied the GP is stupid. They gave their reasoning, which you didn't bother to refute. (It just annoys me when people debate poorly.)
Slashdot Mirror
No. The current maintainer of MTR, Roger Wolff, does care. He's quite explicit in his email, reproduced in TFA. He's been maintaining the software since before WinMTR existed as well according to the MTR page.
sequence[seq].index = index;
sequence[seq].transit = 1;
sequence[seq].saved_seq = ++host[index].xmit;
appear in both sources.
Interesting. I didn't know air resistance scaled so horribly, or that rolling friction scaled so well.
Real estate (land) titles are almost always in traditional units and changing those would be incredibly expensive.
Making new titles use both units doesn't seem like much of a burden, though I'm not very familiar with them.
Finally, it would be nice to have a "true metric" system for temperature, i.e. one where the "degrees" would allow for simplified thermodynamic calculations.
Kelvin and Celcius are at least just translated versions of each other. When temperature differences are needed, Celcius and Kelvin are equivalent. Also, I don't feel *too* guilty making science types convert their units. It's my nurse converting that dosage from English to metric that I'd like to prevent more.
I'm not defending or advocating these policies, I'm just saying the reporting is very poor and clearly meant to gain readers more than inform people.
Can we have sharks with laser beams on their heads, or are they banned too?
Pirates eat bean, bean "distracts suspected pirates rather than harming them" and "makes it difficult for them to aim their AK-47['s] or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship." What's the problem? :)
the cockpit warning system sounded again, this time with a long "bong" that no one present could recall having heard before. This was the "all engines out" sound, an event that had never been simulated during training.
They immediately searched their emergency checklist for the section on flying the aircraft with both engines out, only to find that no such section existed.
Wow. Interesting read.
I always thought it was supposed to be an Australian accent. Maybe it's closer to British? I remember in one ad they made fun of it--he was about to say where he was from and something interrupted him. I dunno how that fits into anything besides making the character memorable. But if you'll remember, the announcer at the end is a younger-middle-aged (probably white) male, which I imagine is the prime demographic for car insurance in my area.
It's advertising, obviously they are going to use the type of voice that their research (or just the anecdotes they happen to have heard) says is most effective for the demographics they are selling to.
Yes, I understand why they do it. I don't debate its effectiveness, I just bemoan its necessity.
I should also mention friction and air resistance should be at least approximately proportional to velocity, and work is force times distance, so in a given distance solar energy has to overcome work proportional to velocity trying to slow you down. At higher speeds you travel the same distance more quickly, so solar power needs to overcome the power of friction and air resistance ~quadratically related to velocity. That is, it gets much harder to go a little faster as speeds increase.
The sun only produces so much energy per unit area on earth. As I understand it, this vehicle uses solar power directly (without storage). Really, you could probably only hope for another order of magnitude or so before reaching the theoretical limit of perfectly efficient solar energy to kinetic energy transfer, and that upper limit is generous.
My point is solar power usage in situations like this has a definite upper limit of efficiency, which we're not *that* far away from.
I agree, their reporting is not rigorous. The first sentence, "61.5 million people in the US owned smartphones during the three months ending in November 2010", is saying the number of smartphone owners did not change by more than 100,000 for 3 solid months. The next clause of that sentence, "up 10 percent from the preceding three-month period", clearly contradicts this. They don't link their source, though they do at least say "according to comScore". I found a press release by comScore which appears to be the source of the table from the TechSpot article. Interestingly, the first sentence of the TechSpot article I quoted above appears verbatim in the comScore press release. Neither discusses how the numbers were compiled or possible sources of error or discrepancy with other, similar reports.
Really, it's poor reporting for TechSpot to plagiarize from comScore, and for comScore to report patently false information with insufficient discussion. And this is why I so often get mad when I read journalist's statistics.
Ads depress me for a similar reason. Announcer voices are male or female depending on what's being sold; homemaker-type products use white upper middle class-style actresses; life insurance commercials use old male announcers, unless it's the Gerber Life commercial (ironically showing right now) in which case it uses a young (but not too young) woman. Of course, these are generalizations and not strict rules, but the correlation is strong. Incidentally, I hate marketing. It seems to be a necessary evil, but I wish their manipulations were as transparent to everyone as they are to me. Maybe then ads would contain more actual content and less flash.
(Yes, this is off topic, but discussing the social security system's IT infrastructure isn't exactly thrilling conversation.)
I have to say, I'm imagining you playing an RTS or FPS while forming those opinions. You seem to value human life through the lens of the ability to respawn. Phrases like "own-side casualties" and "whacked a TeaPartista" make me think you see this as a game, with you in the role of strategic leader. Civil war (which is what you're advocating) is not a game, and when someone dies, they don't respawn. Without knowing more about you, I think "couch slug" is an appropriate handle.
Also, I do not wish you death even though I disagree with you, and if you wish me death for the same thing I strongly advise you to seek counseling. That level of hatred or disregard for human life is dangerous. It is also possible to have victory without defeat--when two sides work together for the same goal, neither has to be defeated.
Alright, but laws against murder don't prevent shoplifting either--they don't even inconvenience shoplifters. I don't see the difference between this sentence (which pretty clearly has no content) and your post. You seem to be trying to imply something, but I can't figure out what.... Maybe that gun laws are useless? That seems pretty clearly wrong--and even if not, it doesn't follow from what you've written.
Personally, I don't have a strong enough opinion on gun control to say much. Automatic weapons should be very difficult to obtain, but hand guns and hunting rifles--I dunno. I've never lived in a place with lots of violent crime so I can't really speak to guns as protection, and I don't hunt; nor have I been even distantly related to gun-related violence. My comment wasn't meant to necessarily imply I think this incident means we need tougher gun control, just that I imagine most people would use this situation as an example that gun control isn't strict enough.
I think that graphic underscores the need for more reasoned discussion and less fiery rhetoric in American politics, regardless of whether or not it was in any way involved in this shooting.
That's an interesting opinion. I personally find it to be either insane or trolling, but it's interesting regardless. You've used a gun crime as an example of why guns should be freely available--I think most people would go the opposite route and use this as an example of a need for stricter gun control laws.
I think it's time to really consider leaving the US before this sort to stupid political strife becomes a full blown civil war...
Really? Even if it was politically motivated, some crazy person(s) shooting people and a civil war aren't in the same league.
It gets inconvenient having both. Mechanics have to use x mm or y/z'th inch wrenches; nurses convert from F to C, pounds to kg's, and feet/inches to meters all the time; NASA lost a mars orbiter a few years back because of a conversion mistake. English units are inconvenient and error prone in other ways, besides the fact that the rest of the world doesn't use them. Try calculating your BMI by hand--you'll need to convert feet+inches to inches, that to meters, and pounds to kg's. The extra feet+inches conversion requires multiplication by 12 instead of a decimal shift and needs to be done even if you use a formula combining the other two conversions into multiplication by a constant. Converting between pounds and tons, gallons and pints, and feet and miles have similar issues--it's just stupid to add random constant multiplications when decimal shifts could do the same job.
If the weather was reported in C and kph, speed limit signs used both mph and kph, and common body temperatures were taught in both C and F, we'd be well on our way to conversion. Even a slow conversion is fine with me--letting the older generations die out as newer ones use metric more and more will eventually cause a switch.
I intensely disliked my college bio course, in part because their reasoning was way too informal. The descriptions of cellular processes (protein synthesis comes to mind) didn't involve any of the nuclear physics I needed to really understand the material. They used analogies intended to simplify the truth into something memorizable instead of derivable.
I distinctly remember Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium getting taught as a gift from the gods. Come test time I couldn't for the life of me remember the assumptions that went into it. I just now looked them up and the assumptions are completely random, independent breeding, equal allele frequencies in both sexes, and that steady state has occurred. None of these is terribly complicated by itself, but they weren't emphasized at all. The formulae P(AA) = p^2, P(Aa) = 2pq, and P(aa) = q^2 were emphasized, which was all I needed for the homework, but I couldn't remember them or their assumptions come test time.
To be honest, that class was poor in other ways, which biased me against it all the more. It was badly organized and went from topic to topic almost randomly. Lecture attendance plummeted by the end of the semester, and a shocking number of those who did attend fell asleep (it was an early class). For all my dislike, I still feel sorry for the lecturers. I think ultimately, the class just wasn't interested in what they had to say and would have greatly preferred an extra hour in bed.
Incidentally we were never taught the carbon cycle. TFA seems to actually be referring to ecology instead of biology, though they overlap.
To a lot of people, college has become a way to stave off real life for four more years. As life expectancies have risen in the last century, people are having families later and working longer. It makes some sense we would also want to "grow up" more slowly.
College has been turning into the new high school for years. I think there will always be a place for top tier 4-year residential colleges, but the number of people in 4-year programs who could better spend their time elsewhere is high. Trade schools and "alternatives" to the traditional residential college are becoming more and more popular, so there's already some backlash reflecting the inefficiency of the current system. Why does a secretary need to know the major sources of plant mass, or the constellations visible from the southern hemisphere in winter, or calculus? Certainly some people innovate and could make use of such knowledge, but (and maybe I'm too cynical) most people just plod through life doing what they need to, solving problems a million other people have solved a million times before. They need only domain-specific knowledge and for the most part couldn't care less about anything else anyway. We may as well let a few percent of people change the world with new ideas and let everyone else simply be productive in a trained monkey sort of way--it seems like that's what everyone wants, anyway.
That's unhelpful. Even if you're right, you didn't say why, and you implied the GP is stupid. They gave their reasoning, which you didn't bother to refute. (It just annoys me when people debate poorly.)
Maybe the GP's phone plan doesn't include text messages.