while you're not in motion, I suppose. Which means missing some beautiful landscapes... but also some really boring timesinks (west texas on I-10 comes to mind...)
theoretically, reviews expire after a year. However, there's nothing obvious preventing someone from adding a review now about something that happened 40 years ago.
It seems like there should be a way to build into the hardware something to prevent the power used for broadcast from being over the limit. After that the firmware can do whatever it wants, no?
yes, exactly. Not everything requires the original data be recreated exactly, after all, just "similar enough". (images and audio, mostly; text and things represented as text usually fare poorly when parts are missing.)
So the data's on a MSUS server? I had thought it was on MSEire servers, which would be indirect access or illegal hacking. Is the judge empowered to require MSUS employees to violate the CFAA?
no. The DMCA requires that the submitter of the complaint be a copyright holder or an agent of a copyright holder (that part has perjury penalties to deter pranksters) and that the submitter have a good faith belief that the content infringes (which just means "someone/a computer algorithm told me it infringes and I don't know otherwise, that's my story and I'm sticking to it"). That's it.
sure it can; it just takes work (which increases entropy somewhere else). Give it a few years (okay, a couple decades) and I bet someone will have an atom-level deposition device that can take a burnt match and air and place the atoms for an unburnt match (not fast, mind you...)
Silly. You don't buy a new printer because the warranty is up, you buy it because you used up the ink in the last one and it's cheaper than replacement cartridges. If you reach the warranty period you're not printing enough to bother; go to Kinko's:)
hmmm. NAS box in other room, usb dongle for ps4 that acts like a drive and uses network to communicate with actual drive... slower and less reliable, but gets the drives out of the way... now I wish I knew enough to try to build the thing:) Or at least to know what flaws I'm not realizing.
I'm not aware of a law saying that the results flatly cannot be released, and what I've heard of the previous judge's ruling doesn't imply that ("would not be sufficiently anonymous" is much different from "not releasable for any reason other than recount"). Do you have a pointer to that law?
That's probably a better phrase, I agree. While the definition of "experiment", as I understand it, does include "set up a telescope and see what's there" (being "an act for the purpose of discovering") the common perception includes setting up equipment to ensure that what you're watching turns out to be interesting:)
The court has ruled that releasing records from a single district violates that. Perhaps releasing records sampled over multiple districts randomly doesn't. Or perhaps it does. It's not about what she's going to do with them, it's about which records she gets to look at and whether there's enough information in that data set to reduce anonymity.
and the researcher says that the statute requires them to remain anonymous, not unseen. If her plan keeps the records anonymous, then is it still illegal? (I haven't looked up the statute itself, but I assume if it clearly refuted the "anonymous, not unseen" part someone would have mentioned it in the news stories.)
I wouldn't call it "nearly identical". Clarkson's new request better maintains the anonymity of the votes, by eliminating a geographic factor (which should also reduce the burden on the state, since one of their gripes was that they don't keep the tapes grouped by district) and it looks like the anonymity issue is what got her refused last time (by the judge).
I may be wrong, but what it looks like to me is: if you're a Virgin customer and you don't opt out you get to use the network at 10Mbps. If you're not a virgin customer or you opt out (because really, how are they going to be able to tell that random mobile device X belongs to an opted-out virgin user and not a random member of the public?) you're limited to the 0.5Mbps rate.
Slashdot Mirror
no heatsink attached to the chip. There's one elsewhere, even if it's just tubing wall.
Personally, and for no good reason, I kind of want to build a rig that uses a radiator from a '57 chevy :)
That does sound better than this description. We'll see how it goes.
while you're not in motion, I suppose. Which means missing some beautiful landscapes... but also some really boring timesinks (west texas on I-10 comes to mind...)
theoretically, reviews expire after a year. However, there's nothing obvious preventing someone from adding a review now about something that happened 40 years ago.
It seems like there should be a way to build into the hardware something to prevent the power used for broadcast from being over the limit. After that the firmware can do whatever it wants, no?
yes, exactly. Not everything requires the original data be recreated exactly, after all, just "similar enough". (images and audio, mostly; text and things represented as text usually fare poorly when parts are missing.)
That's 200 gigabucks, or 0.2 terabucks. Still a crapload.
So the data's on a MSUS server? I had thought it was on MSEire servers, which would be indirect access or illegal hacking. Is the judge empowered to require MSUS employees to violate the CFAA?
suing microsoft to supply data held by an irish company (wholly owned by microsoft, but still irish) on irish soil?
Depends which emissions they're concerned about. Diesels (as I recall) are worse for particulates and NOx, but better as far as CO2.
no. The DMCA requires that the submitter of the complaint be a copyright holder or an agent of a copyright holder (that part has perjury penalties to deter pranksters) and that the submitter have a good faith belief that the content infringes (which just means "someone/a computer algorithm told me it infringes and I don't know otherwise, that's my story and I'm sticking to it"). That's it.
sure it can; it just takes work (which increases entropy somewhere else). Give it a few years (okay, a couple decades) and I bet someone will have an atom-level deposition device that can take a burnt match and air and place the atoms for an unburnt match (not fast, mind you...)
Silly. You don't buy a new printer because the warranty is up, you buy it because you used up the ink in the last one and it's cheaper than replacement cartridges. If you reach the warranty period you're not printing enough to bother; go to Kinko's :)
Thanks, that link was quite informative. What I had previously read of the judge's decision was apparently incomplete.
hmmm. NAS box in other room, usb dongle for ps4 that acts like a drive and uses network to communicate with actual drive... slower and less reliable, but gets the drives out of the way... now I wish I knew enough to try to build the thing :) Or at least to know what flaws I'm not realizing.
I'm not aware of a law saying that the results flatly cannot be released, and what I've heard of the previous judge's ruling doesn't imply that ("would not be sufficiently anonymous" is much different from "not releasable for any reason other than recount"). Do you have a pointer to that law?
That's probably a better phrase, I agree. While the definition of "experiment", as I understand it, does include "set up a telescope and see what's there" (being "an act for the purpose of discovering") the common perception includes setting up equipment to ensure that what you're watching turns out to be interesting :)
bit-exact is easier to test than "image quality". I suspect a less than tech-savvy reporter heard "no loss" and stuck in "notable".
It's been about explaining the "why" questions that really translate to "what's happening that results in this phenomena".
indeed, hypothesis tested by experiment. But lack of reproducibility calls into question the effectiveness of the testing.
yep, and they replicated their result 245 times. The typical psych experiment doesn't have that luxury; it takes too long and too much effort.
The court has ruled that releasing records from a single district violates that. Perhaps releasing records sampled over multiple districts randomly doesn't. Or perhaps it does. It's not about what she's going to do with them, it's about which records she gets to look at and whether there's enough information in that data set to reduce anonymity.
and the researcher says that the statute requires them to remain anonymous, not unseen. If her plan keeps the records anonymous, then is it still illegal? (I haven't looked up the statute itself, but I assume if it clearly refuted the "anonymous, not unseen" part someone would have mentioned it in the news stories.)
I wouldn't call it "nearly identical". Clarkson's new request better maintains the anonymity of the votes, by eliminating a geographic factor (which should also reduce the burden on the state, since one of their gripes was that they don't keep the tapes grouped by district) and it looks like the anonymity issue is what got her refused last time (by the judge).
I may be wrong, but what it looks like to me is: if you're a Virgin customer and you don't opt out you get to use the network at 10Mbps. If you're not a virgin customer or you opt out (because really, how are they going to be able to tell that random mobile device X belongs to an opted-out virgin user and not a random member of the public?) you're limited to the 0.5Mbps rate.