Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take.
That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.
The way to show how ridiculous this is would be to trump (in the sense of card games, not the US political candidate) the proposer. "Let's remove seat belts and airbags from cars. Everyone knows they reduce injury and death as a result of crashes, so without them, everyone will drive more slowly and cautiously, and avoid crashing!"
Maybe we can nominate the company for a Meta-Darwin Award.
Nope. Anybody who can afford one will have already reproduced. Darwins are for those who kindly remove their special brand of idiocy from the gene pool.
I thought this (though I haven't read TFA). My example would be the Enigma Secret, which is a conspiracy of sorts. There was a startling fact involving hundreds of people, and yet it was *decades* before the truth was revealed.
That's clearly different, as the Enigma knowledge was a State Secret, with the threat of being tried for treason (and potentially executed) as a potential penalty. As another commenter has pointed out, the existence of a compelling moral reason to maintain the secret will invalidate the formula. One test case was "the belief that pharmaceutical companies have suppressed a cure for cancer." the moral imperative would be to reveal this, not to continue the secret.
I don't have a lot of faith in this paper - it doesn't take into account conspiracies that actually succeed.
Well, there are some known conspiracies that haven't failed yet. Throw the algorithm at the Voynich manuscript. Handwriting analysis alone can give a good estimate of the number of conspirators, and carbon dating can tell the age. If the probability of discovery is calculated to be greater than the reciprocal of the number of experts who have examined the text, then the algorithm fails.
Then there's the other end of the spectrum: if the Tower Commission is to believed, the Iran-Contra affair only involved 14 people, and yet completely unraveled in under two years. I think that to be realistic, the equation would require a variable to account for how many people *not involved in the conspiracy* are impacted by it.
Willingness to buy a smartgun does not equate to support of legislation to require only smartguns. That is the primary fallacy of the submitter.
I think the surprise part is that it's a 5x jump in interest from just three years ago. Neither article mentions legislation as being either an enabler or deterrent.
That being said, I've never owned a gun, and have never been interested due to the risks of it being used in unintended ways, so I think I'd find myself in the market for the NJIT grip recognition model if it were available (not interested in wearing an RFID watch to bed, that's for sure).
"Hacking" sounds illegal and in this day and age, if something just sounds illegal it probably is, and it's best to err on the safe of caution. You should not alter equipment or modify it, you can only use as specified in the contract. Buy something that meets your criteria and be content with it. If nothing in the market can meet your criteria, then probably there's something wrong with you.
Seriously? Wow. One egregious error per sentence.
1. I can pretty much guarantee that any "hacking" that the OP undertakes will be in the analog domain, and not subject to the DMCA.
2. I've never seen a EULA on a piece of audio equipment, even a Blu-Ray player with HDMI. You're not signing a contract.
3. The OP is looking for a project, a hobby. His hobby is apparently *not* shopping.
4. If you think Audio is a "one size fits all" proposition, then there's something wrong with YOU,
So, back to the original question. Here's a fun one, that will help reduce noise on mono LP's played using "modern" (since 1965) stereo equipment: Passive Stereo to Mono Resistive Mixer.
That summary sounds like something you'd read in The Onion.
That is where it belongs. Helium-3 is the dumbest, most impractical solution to our energy problems imaginable. Unicorn farts would be a more realistic power source. We don't actual have any helium-3, and even if we did, it is far harder to fuse, with far less energy out, than deuterium, and deuterium fusion still isn't anywhere near breakeven after 60 years of effort.
You don't seem to understand the physics. The first step of accomplishing Deuterium fusion is to create Helium-3. So, having Helium-3 would enable a fusion reactor to skip the first step in the proton-proton chain reaction. So no, if you had Helium-3, it would be far EASIER to fuse, and with far MORE energy out.
The problem is, as you said, that we don't have Helium-3. Helium-3 from the sun, arriving on Earth, exists only in rarefied quantities at the top of the atmosphere. The moon, having no atmosphere, has ~4 Billion years' worth of Helium-3 accumulated in the top 1-meter thickness of its soil.
You can "mine" Helium-3 from lunar soil by simply heating it to ~600 degrees F. It gasifies, and can be collected and compressed. This requires VASTLY less energy than creating the Deuterium-to-Helium reaction. The problem, of course, is to get the cost (energy expenditure) of the soil collection and heating process down to reasonable levels.
Clearly, laying out all of the numbers involved would require several hundred pages of calculations, but many have concluded that in the long run, it would be more "efficient" to bring Helium-3 from the moon than to continue to attempt to design fusion reactors that require a Deuterium-to-Helium-3 initial step.
Yes, they've been saying it for years, but TFA (and TFS) seem to be under the impression that people somewhere are touting their products as "AI." Quite simply, they're not. IBM clearly positions Watson as a "natural language-capable database." That's it. NOBODY is saying these things are AI, so the author is shooting at a target that does not exist.
Every year I get spam emails from my acquaintances who use Yahoo, and the inevitable email of shame "Ignore that message, my account was hacked."
The full accounts aren't hacked (i.e., login credentials aren't compromised), but Yahoo has a long-standing security hole through which its users' address books can be accessed. It's trivial to spoof the "From" field, so the intruders make the spam look like it's coming from friends. I emptied all Yahoo address books, and the problem has gone away.
I disagree, If you have a winner/loser, it's a competition. To be a sport, the competitors must do the work. Car drivers do only a tiny fraction of the total work in their race.
No to any motor"sport." Horse racing, no. Bike Racing, yes. Simply put, to be a sport, it should require that the majority of the total energy expenditure come from the participant.
Unfortunately, under my definition, not only is bowling a sport, but so is competitive eating (already shows up in the sports section of my local paper).
600k is nary a blip on MS' radar. That's not a punishment.
Yes, but if TFA is correct and the person who died was not informed of the live circuit status, you can add two zeroes to the end of that number when the wrongful death lawsuit is filed.
Precisely. If they're going to "demand" this, they need to stop extorting tax breaks out of the cities and states where they consider building new facilities, so the school systems will actually be able to afford to provide a decent education.
Precisely. I read this post, and heard the voice of Christine Baranski in my head..."So needy." If you're cheap, and really want to promote open source software, write it yourself. You say it's a simple task; just do it, and then share.
If you're not willing to pay for the simplicity and ease of something like iMovie (free with every Mac since 1998 or so, so the barrier to entry is below $100), you need to pony up.
WSJ reporter didn't even look at his map. Not only is Traverse City not the northern tip of the LOWER Peninsula, it's over 200 miles south of the actual northernmost town in Michigan. sheesh.
I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.
No, TFS has it correct. It's classified as "Commercial Spaceflight," and the Federal Government deliberately moved jurisdiction from NASA to the FAA.
I should follow up that I do not believe that the sale of the flag should be banned. That would also represent a restriction of free speech. If you can find people who want to make it, and people who want to sell it, you should be able to buy it, just like people should be able to buy other symbols and icons that represent a desire to change the law ("Legalize it!, etc,). I just believe that people aren't thinking carefully enough about what this particular symbol truly represents, and if a majority of the citizens in a State believe it's offensive to display an item over the Capitol, then those people have the right to bring those grievances to the State Government and expect change.
The flag only represented treason when the South lost. Up until then it represented freedom from the oppressive North, a North that wouldn't let them govern themselves how they saw fit.
I can't believe we're still dealing with this strawman. I also can't believe you don't see the irony in your own statement. The people of the south wanted "freedom" to deny freedom to others, and you're OK with that?
When some folks finally got enlightened enough to realize that the ownership of human beings is just plain WRONG, a majority of the citizens of the US (which is how our representative democracy works) convinced their legislators and President that "how they saw fit" should be outlawed. They way we effect change in this country is through legislation. If an Army base were to be attacked today for the reasons that Fort Sumter was shelled, we'd call it terrorism. So, yes, the flag was treasonous on the day it was created, and continues to be so because of the "ideals" it represents.
The southern states only considered this "oppressive" because an end to slavery meant lower profits for slave-owners. This is clearly outlined in their secession statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take.
That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.
The way to show how ridiculous this is would be to trump (in the sense of card games, not the US political candidate) the proposer. "Let's remove seat belts and airbags from cars. Everyone knows they reduce injury and death as a result of crashes, so without them, everyone will drive more slowly and cautiously, and avoid crashing!"
Maybe we can nominate the company for a Meta-Darwin Award.
Nope. Anybody who can afford one will have already reproduced. Darwins are for those who kindly remove their special brand of idiocy from the gene pool.
I thought this (though I haven't read TFA). My example would be the Enigma Secret, which is a conspiracy of sorts. There was a startling fact involving hundreds of people, and yet it was *decades* before the truth was revealed.
That's clearly different, as the Enigma knowledge was a State Secret, with the threat of being tried for treason (and potentially executed) as a potential penalty. As another commenter has pointed out, the existence of a compelling moral reason to maintain the secret will invalidate the formula. One test case was "the belief that pharmaceutical companies have suppressed a cure for cancer." the moral imperative would be to reveal this, not to continue the secret.
I don't have a lot of faith in this paper - it doesn't take into account conspiracies that actually succeed.
Well, there are some known conspiracies that haven't failed yet. Throw the algorithm at the Voynich manuscript. Handwriting analysis alone can give a good estimate of the number of conspirators, and carbon dating can tell the age. If the probability of discovery is calculated to be greater than the reciprocal of the number of experts who have examined the text, then the algorithm fails.
Then there's the other end of the spectrum: if the Tower Commission is to believed, the Iran-Contra affair only involved 14 people, and yet completely unraveled in under two years. I think that to be realistic, the equation would require a variable to account for how many people *not involved in the conspiracy* are impacted by it.
Willingness to buy a smartgun does not equate to support of legislation to require only smartguns. That is the primary fallacy of the submitter.
I think the surprise part is that it's a 5x jump in interest from just three years ago. Neither article mentions legislation as being either an enabler or deterrent. That being said, I've never owned a gun, and have never been interested due to the risks of it being used in unintended ways, so I think I'd find myself in the market for the NJIT grip recognition model if it were available (not interested in wearing an RFID watch to bed, that's for sure).
"Hacking" sounds illegal and in this day and age, if something just sounds illegal it probably is, and it's best to err on the safe of caution. You should not alter equipment or modify it, you can only use as specified in the contract. Buy something that meets your criteria and be content with it. If nothing in the market can meet your criteria, then probably there's something wrong with you.
Seriously? Wow. One egregious error per sentence.
So, back to the original question. Here's a fun one, that will help reduce noise on mono LP's played using "modern" (since 1965) stereo equipment: Passive Stereo to Mono Resistive Mixer.
That summary sounds like something you'd read in The Onion.
That is where it belongs. Helium-3 is the dumbest, most impractical solution to our energy problems imaginable. Unicorn farts would be a more realistic power source. We don't actual have any helium-3, and even if we did, it is far harder to fuse, with far less energy out, than deuterium, and deuterium fusion still isn't anywhere near breakeven after 60 years of effort.
You don't seem to understand the physics. The first step of accomplishing Deuterium fusion is to create Helium-3. So, having Helium-3 would enable a fusion reactor to skip the first step in the proton-proton chain reaction. So no, if you had Helium-3, it would be far EASIER to fuse, and with far MORE energy out.
The problem is, as you said, that we don't have Helium-3. Helium-3 from the sun, arriving on Earth, exists only in rarefied quantities at the top of the atmosphere. The moon, having no atmosphere, has ~4 Billion years' worth of Helium-3 accumulated in the top 1-meter thickness of its soil.
You can "mine" Helium-3 from lunar soil by simply heating it to ~600 degrees F. It gasifies, and can be collected and compressed. This requires VASTLY less energy than creating the Deuterium-to-Helium reaction. The problem, of course, is to get the cost (energy expenditure) of the soil collection and heating process down to reasonable levels.
Clearly, laying out all of the numbers involved would require several hundred pages of calculations, but many have concluded that in the long run, it would be more "efficient" to bring Helium-3 from the moon than to continue to attempt to design fusion reactors that require a Deuterium-to-Helium-3 initial step.
Yes, they've been saying it for years, but TFA (and TFS) seem to be under the impression that people somewhere are touting their products as "AI." Quite simply, they're not. IBM clearly positions Watson as a "natural language-capable database." That's it. NOBODY is saying these things are AI, so the author is shooting at a target that does not exist.
Every year I get spam emails from my acquaintances who use Yahoo, and the inevitable email of shame "Ignore that message, my account was hacked."
The full accounts aren't hacked (i.e., login credentials aren't compromised), but Yahoo has a long-standing security hole through which its users' address books can be accessed. It's trivial to spoof the "From" field, so the intruders make the spam look like it's coming from friends. I emptied all Yahoo address books, and the problem has gone away.
I disagree, If you have a winner/loser, it's a competition. To be a sport, the competitors must do the work. Car drivers do only a tiny fraction of the total work in their race.
No to any motor"sport." Horse racing, no. Bike Racing, yes. Simply put, to be a sport, it should require that the majority of the total energy expenditure come from the participant. Unfortunately, under my definition, not only is bowling a sport, but so is competitive eating (already shows up in the sports section of my local paper).
Sorry, NASCAR's not a sport.
600k is nary a blip on MS' radar. That's not a punishment.
Yes, but if TFA is correct and the person who died was not informed of the live circuit status, you can add two zeroes to the end of that number when the wrongful death lawsuit is filed.
Precisely. If they're going to "demand" this, they need to stop extorting tax breaks out of the cities and states where they consider building new facilities, so the school systems will actually be able to afford to provide a decent education.
It's easy! Just count arms, legs and heads, and divide by five.
Aaaaannnd... Whoooooosh!
Precisely. I read this post, and heard the voice of Christine Baranski in my head..."So needy." If you're cheap, and really want to promote open source software, write it yourself. You say it's a simple task; just do it, and then share. If you're not willing to pay for the simplicity and ease of something like iMovie (free with every Mac since 1998 or so, so the barrier to entry is below $100), you need to pony up.
To which I have to ask: just WHAT was the author expecting? I RTFA, and he should have known it would not provide instant gratification.
So, he's announcing a priori that he'll be a lame duck. Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%
WSJ reporter didn't even look at his map. Not only is Traverse City not the northern tip of the LOWER Peninsula, it's over 200 miles south of the actual northernmost town in Michigan. sheesh.
In my Honda, if the stereo is off, pushing any of the input selector buttons (FM/AM, CD, Aux) also turns the unit on.
I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.
No, TFS has it correct. It's classified as "Commercial Spaceflight," and the Federal Government deliberately moved jurisdiction from NASA to the FAA.
I should follow up that I do not believe that the sale of the flag should be banned. That would also represent a restriction of free speech. If you can find people who want to make it, and people who want to sell it, you should be able to buy it, just like people should be able to buy other symbols and icons that represent a desire to change the law ("Legalize it!, etc,). I just believe that people aren't thinking carefully enough about what this particular symbol truly represents, and if a majority of the citizens in a State believe it's offensive to display an item over the Capitol, then those people have the right to bring those grievances to the State Government and expect change.
The flag only represented treason when the South lost. Up until then it represented freedom from the oppressive North, a North that wouldn't let them govern themselves how they saw fit.
I can't believe we're still dealing with this strawman. I also can't believe you don't see the irony in your own statement. The people of the south wanted "freedom" to deny freedom to others, and you're OK with that?
When some folks finally got enlightened enough to realize that the ownership of human beings is just plain WRONG, a majority of the citizens of the US (which is how our representative democracy works) convinced their legislators and President that "how they saw fit" should be outlawed. They way we effect change in this country is through legislation. If an Army base were to be attacked today for the reasons that Fort Sumter was shelled, we'd call it terrorism. So, yes, the flag was treasonous on the day it was created, and continues to be so because of the "ideals" it represents.
The southern states only considered this "oppressive" because an end to slavery meant lower profits for slave-owners. This is clearly outlined in their secession statements.