I meant "jail or prison". Everything outside of "put in jail" is not really relevant. It might be a problem, yes, but it's orthogonal to whether strip searching when admitted to a jail or prison is reasonable.
Now imagine if someone in law enforcement took a dislike to you.
Then being searched in the process of being thrown in jail would probably be fairly low on my list of concerns.
It's kind of weird to move to Canada just because the Supreme Court upholds an existing and fairly legitimate practice. They've been strip searching everyone admitted into a prison for a while now for security.
That's right. That's not fed up with the state of commercial music, that's going where the music is. The music is going (away from big labels) because of decisions on the part of the creators.
Technically there's fancier wording you should use on that statement. We can't evaluate the chance because we don't have sufficient information. Given our current models of the game, we can estimate the chance of a statement being incorrect. A major problem in the model could render your estimate inaccurate (just like problems one deals with in experimentation). On the whole, it's a rare occurrence. It's just that it's very different from a proof, which is exactly correct because it is built entirely from axioms.
I think it's more DIY than "fed up with the state of music". The Internet has done a lot more than make it really easy to pirate music at a large scale. It's also made it really easy to produce and publish your own music and create your own "brand" without ever dealing with a corporation that's selective, expensive, and difficult to work with. It's also made it really easy to discover, discuss, and promote bands through this whole "social media" thing.
Well, I fly almost exclusively out of a small airport that makes only short flights (to neighboring large airports).
For one, there are almost never small delays, because it's simply not that busy. When the plane is ready, everyone goes out to the plane, sits down, and it leaves. The only delays you really ever see are small delays because the plane didn't get in on time (because it was delayed at the big airport it came from) or catastrophic delays because of mechanical problems (which they're not equipped to handle in a reasonable time frame).
For another, they pad the hell out of the time allocated for short flights. The flights almost always arrive 15 minutes early because of this.
A few points: In your scheme they don't need to track who is requesting map tiles in order to get traffic estimates, although they may get slightly more accurate velocity data from doing so (which can be pseudonymous). Maps and especially turn-by-turn directions has a nasty habit of prefetching and caching large amounts of map. Directions, for example,prefetches your entire predicted route and now, apparently, also prefetches "some" deviations from that path. Map tiles are large compared to the size of roads, so in any place with a reasonably high road density (e.g., inside a city), your traffic estimates will be useless because of lack of precision.
The change is so small that it falls within the noise of natural variability
It doesn't. Short-term variability averages out well by computing longer-term trends. Long-term variability is about an order of magnitude slower than the current trend.
Ah, ok. I thought OAuth was usually used for access to services (like if you want a website to have access to your Gmail contacts) and OpenID was used for shared sign-in with no service access.
That's not how OAuth works. The party receiving the authentication (Gawker) doesn't at any point get access to the authentication data (your Facebook / Twitter / Google credentials).
They also don't get access to your Facebook / Twitter / Google session authentication. A consumer of OAuth authentications can't use that authentication token to use any of the authentication provider's services.
OK, so Congress thinks it's perfectly OK for employers to demand access to employee social media accounts, right?
This is the problem with stories like this. It can seem like that's what they're thinking, and maybe it's even true. We can't know what other people are thinking. But what they actually did is reject an amendment to a somewhat-related bill that is currently in progress. That amendment has an effect, but the effect is not exactly making it illegal for employers to ask for your Facebook password; it's much more indirect than that. So there are lots of perfectly reasonable reasons to reject it even if you agree with the spirit of the amendment: e.g., it creates problems in the bill or it doesn't solve the problem it nominally sets out to.
Oh, plus, according to some, this practice is already illegal. Since nobody's been successfully sued or prosecuted for it yet, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely.
Electromagnetic waves aren't composed of electrons at all. Electromagnetic waves are composed of photons in the sense that the photon is, by definition, the particle representation of an electromagnetic wave or, equally, the force-carrier for the electromagnetic force.
In the same sense, what "composes" the quantum wavefunction of an electron is an electron. What composes the quantum wavefunction of an up quark is an up quark.
Particle-wave duality is not philosophical. What it means and whether an object "really" is both a particle and a wave might be philosophical questions, but that's not what's meant in physics when one refers to "particle-wave duality". It's the observable (and, indeed, observed) fact that objects exhibit a set of properties that are both classically wave-like and classically particle-like.
In modern quantum mechanics you don't even really talk about particle-wave duality much. It's simpler to approach it from the perspective that all objects are described by their wavefunction and that observation causes a collapse of the wavefunction with respect to the observed variable.
I should point out that for sufficiently small objects, scientists already do this on a regular basis. Scanning tunneling microscopy, for example, relies on electrons tunneling through a potential barrier, using the tunneling rate to measure the strength of the barrier. (Strictly speaking, small-scale electron tunneling is happening all the time, everywhere, but that doesn't make for a good concrete example.)
Funny, but I'll answer anyway.:-) No, of course it hasn't. Yes, you could say that it exhibits particle-wave duality without trying it. Regardless, Schroedinger's Cat is about superposition of states and not particle-wave duality.
They allow food on airplanes. You can even bring food through security. I usually end up travelling spanning at least one meal and refuse to eat airport food (much less airline food) and so bring a sub with me on the flight.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a new rule. It's an existing practice that the Supreme Court ruled on.
I meant "jail or prison". Everything outside of "put in jail" is not really relevant. It might be a problem, yes, but it's orthogonal to whether strip searching when admitted to a jail or prison is reasonable.
Now imagine if someone in law enforcement took a dislike to you.
Then being searched in the process of being thrown in jail would probably be fairly low on my list of concerns.
It's kind of weird to move to Canada just because the Supreme Court upholds an existing and fairly legitimate practice. They've been strip searching everyone admitted into a prison for a while now for security.
Where does the article talk about prison?
It's in both the summary and the article. Try searching for jail or prison.
This ruling is actually upholding existing practice -- if you're admitted in to a jail or prison (as a prisoner), you can be strip searched.
That's right. That's not fed up with the state of commercial music, that's going where the music is. The music is going (away from big labels) because of decisions on the part of the creators.
Technically there's fancier wording you should use on that statement. We can't evaluate the chance because we don't have sufficient information. Given our current models of the game, we can estimate the chance of a statement being incorrect. A major problem in the model could render your estimate inaccurate (just like problems one deals with in experimentation). On the whole, it's a rare occurrence. It's just that it's very different from a proof, which is exactly correct because it is built entirely from axioms.
Ah, but that's a problem from the creator's side. It's not really a problem from the consumer's side.
I think it's more DIY than "fed up with the state of music". The Internet has done a lot more than make it really easy to pirate music at a large scale. It's also made it really easy to produce and publish your own music and create your own "brand" without ever dealing with a corporation that's selective, expensive, and difficult to work with. It's also made it really easy to discover, discuss, and promote bands through this whole "social media" thing.
That's the difference between an experiment and a proof.
In science, there's a fancy term for this. It's called "large". Or, if you really need to, "very large".
Well, I fly almost exclusively out of a small airport that makes only short flights (to neighboring large airports).
For one, there are almost never small delays, because it's simply not that busy. When the plane is ready, everyone goes out to the plane, sits down, and it leaves. The only delays you really ever see are small delays because the plane didn't get in on time (because it was delayed at the big airport it came from) or catastrophic delays because of mechanical problems (which they're not equipped to handle in a reasonable time frame).
For another, they pad the hell out of the time allocated for short flights. The flights almost always arrive 15 minutes early because of this.
A few points:
In your scheme they don't need to track who is requesting map tiles in order to get traffic estimates, although they may get slightly more accurate velocity data from doing so (which can be pseudonymous).
Maps and especially turn-by-turn directions has a nasty habit of prefetching and caching large amounts of map. Directions, for example,prefetches your entire predicted route and now, apparently, also prefetches "some" deviations from that path.
Map tiles are large compared to the size of roads, so in any place with a reasonably high road density (e.g., inside a city), your traffic estimates will be useless because of lack of precision.
The change is so small that it falls within the noise of natural variability
It doesn't. Short-term variability averages out well by computing longer-term trends. Long-term variability is about an order of magnitude slower than the current trend.
Ah, ok. I thought OAuth was usually used for access to services (like if you want a website to have access to your Gmail contacts) and OpenID was used for shared sign-in with no service access.
You know that two of those options -- Google and Twitter -- provide pseudonymity.
Er, OpenID, not OAuth.
That's not how OAuth works. The party receiving the authentication (Gawker) doesn't at any point get access to the authentication data (your Facebook / Twitter / Google credentials).
They also don't get access to your Facebook / Twitter / Google session authentication. A consumer of OAuth authentications can't use that authentication token to use any of the authentication provider's services.
OK, so Congress thinks it's perfectly OK for employers to demand access to employee social media accounts, right?
This is the problem with stories like this. It can seem like that's what they're thinking, and maybe it's even true. We can't know what other people are thinking. But what they actually did is reject an amendment to a somewhat-related bill that is currently in progress. That amendment has an effect, but the effect is not exactly making it illegal for employers to ask for your Facebook password; it's much more indirect than that. So there are lots of perfectly reasonable reasons to reject it even if you agree with the spirit of the amendment: e.g., it creates problems in the bill or it doesn't solve the problem it nominally sets out to.
Oh, plus, according to some, this practice is already illegal. Since nobody's been successfully sued or prosecuted for it yet, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely.
Sure, as long as locality and causality aren't all that important. :-)
Electromagnetic waves aren't composed of electrons at all. Electromagnetic waves are composed of photons in the sense that the photon is, by definition, the particle representation of an electromagnetic wave or, equally, the force-carrier for the electromagnetic force.
In the same sense, what "composes" the quantum wavefunction of an electron is an electron. What composes the quantum wavefunction of an up quark is an up quark.
Particle-wave duality is not philosophical. What it means and whether an object "really" is both a particle and a wave might be philosophical questions, but that's not what's meant in physics when one refers to "particle-wave duality". It's the observable (and, indeed, observed) fact that objects exhibit a set of properties that are both classically wave-like and classically particle-like.
In modern quantum mechanics you don't even really talk about particle-wave duality much. It's simpler to approach it from the perspective that all objects are described by their wavefunction and that observation causes a collapse of the wavefunction with respect to the observed variable.
I should point out that for sufficiently small objects, scientists already do this on a regular basis. Scanning tunneling microscopy, for example, relies on electrons tunneling through a potential barrier, using the tunneling rate to measure the strength of the barrier. (Strictly speaking, small-scale electron tunneling is happening all the time, everywhere, but that doesn't make for a good concrete example.)
Funny, but I'll answer anyway. :-) No, of course it hasn't. Yes, you could say that it exhibits particle-wave duality without trying it. Regardless, Schroedinger's Cat is about superposition of states and not particle-wave duality.
Well, in the 50s Pan Am advertised flights to Europe for $442 round-trip, which would be about $3200-$3900 today.
They allow food on airplanes. You can even bring food through security. I usually end up travelling spanning at least one meal and refuse to eat airport food (much less airline food) and so bring a sub with me on the flight.