I can only guess that the author of the article thinks that "rebooted" means "plugged in and turned on". When I first saw the title I thought it meant that it had been running for years and was to undergo a rare re-start.
I'm saving the one unopened set I have. I'm storing them with my lawn darts. Maybe I'll put them in a box with my Scrabble dictionary I bought when I heard the new edition would remove "offensive" words, and my green laser pointer if enough idiots shine them at police helicopters that they get banned too.
Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?
The people who count the votes are watched carefully by representatives of both major parties and sometimes by minor party candidates, looking for signs of errors or cheating. By contrast, the people who want to pay us for votes are harder to keep track of.
I should have been more explicit. People who count the votes include: those who write the voting machine s/w, those who service the machines, those who set up the machines, poll workers, those who transport the votes, those who collect absentee ballots, those who count absentee ballots ( and associated machines, s/w and maintenance )
Votes aren't all counted by hand with watchers looking over their shoulders. That might be the case in Dixville Notch, NH, but not everywhere. It would be my lack of trust in the large group of unknown people fiddling with my vote that I'd want to be able to check up on.
This rationale means that citizen votes that carry a little more weight than throwing a coin in a wishing well can't be "sold". But a senator/congressman who votes on something that has a much more direct effect can and are sold every day.
Conveniently, keeping voters from having a receipt prevents them from verifying how (or if ) their vote was recorded. This suggests the question: Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?
If you're in the election fraud business, which would be tougher? Buy raw votes and require validation from each voter, or buy a person or persons involved in the tallying of those votes? (or hire a 3rd party to tamper with electronic voting systems )
First shoot it with a.458 magnum several times (An elephant gun to those who don't know calibers and it's has MUCH more of a punch than a.50 caliber. A 20mm cannon would be better, but I have yet to see a rifle for that.), start a bonfire (you're NOT going to butcher the beast! IT's too big), and then when it's done, take a machete and hack off chunks.
That was back before HD and encrypted HDMI. The cable box took the digital signal from the cable provider and it was converted to analog video in the. The TiVo/ReplayTV took the analog video and digitized it before storing on the hard drive. When watching it the DVR converted it back to analog video again. Not exactly the best approach for high fidelity viewing.
If you could control a new box today with an older DVR you might be able to do that, recording the analog output. ( provided it doesn't have copy protection and the DVR refuses to record it which is a strong possibility ) Now if there was a cable box that didn't have HDCP on it's output, then you could do that with a properly equipped DVR.
Can you "buy" anything from the Play store? I know I can get music as MP3 from Amazon, but haven't tried music from Play. Anything else is DRM'd and not easily transportable, is it? I don't pay for books or movies from Amazon for that reason.
That's why my approach is to reject any hardware that is intended to restrict your access to content from other sources (or stuff you might already own). Now if it was free and they were hoping to make money on me buying new content, maybe I'd be tempted. But if the price is close to the same as an open device, no reason to encourage them to keep making these devices.
I'm OK ( if not happy ) with Amazon selling DRM'd Kindle books that can be accessed via Kindle apps on wide range of platforms. But I might want to get a book from B&N or Google and I'd prefer my device didn't restrict me to purchasing from a single store.
Unfortunately there's enough sheeple out there to make hardware that's intentionally crippled to restrict choice a viable business model.
I spent most of the 80's working on flight simulators that had rows of cabinets on raised flooring. One sim was supposed to be at 70F and the temp was usually so stable that if it was up more than a few degrees we could tell by feel and smell as soon as we walked in the room.
By shear luck I worked on simulators in Las Vegas, New Mexico and South Korea, all places that in the summer you really wouldn't want to be working outside. The constant temp during working hours was great ( though I think it made me more of a wimp for temp extremes when I went outside ) Thinking about the oil immersion and what I'd guess would be warmer ambient temps in computer rooms is a little sad. It was the extra cool computer rooms that I worked in that added to the appeal of my job back then.
As the earth rotates approx 28 times the rate of the moon's orbit, said string would be winding around the earth like a spool. So either the string will break as the attachment point on the earth moves away, or given infinite strength it will reel in the moon to impact in approx 9 days.
So if the imaginary string is fragile it will snap. If it's sufficiently strong then no, the moon would no longer orbit the earth.
I guess some hyperbole comes in handy when you're trying for grants and other funding, it's definitely the norm for reporters. In the article though at least the researching team isn't quoted saying they observed it happening, but that they found evidence of it having happened. Another supposed scientist from Spain had to through in the "caught in the act" line though.
Granted something that far away will never be observed as it happened, but it's not like they observed the occurrence as it appeared here. It's like the difference between seeing the blood on the ground and a body and seeing the person being shot. One is seeing the act, one is seeing the evidence.
It's OK to demand that it be listed. And if who you buy from doesn't list it, don't buy from them. Making it a law just wastes many millions of dollars. The problem with legislation is that it's legislation. If enough people want to boycott GM foods then they'll be less economically viable and they'll have more non-GM food to choose from. This has the added benefit of self-verification of far-away farms problematic, so those wanting to avoid GM foods will be more likely to buy local.
When labeling becomes government mandated then lots of money comes into play. And of course graft and corruption always follows money. -- Who checks to see if a product is labeled non-GM ( or not labeled GM) correctly? Can the product be tested or does it require access to the process of growing and processing? -- How many steps away from the original product is GM labeling necessary? If the product is canned, frozen, dried? (requires more bureaucracy to monitor/enforce) -- What about meat products where the feed was GM crops? -- Does it make any yard waste now "toxic" because someone might have put GM corncobs in with the grass clippings? Don't want to use that compost on your organic tomatoes. --What about subsequent products made from the original product that want to avoid the GM label? Can the makers of these products go by labels only or do they have to research themselves to avoid liability? (requires even more bureaucracy to monitor/enforce ), If they go by labels only do they have record keeping requirements? -- What about restaurants that serve food that want to avoid putting "GM" next to every item? Do they have to certify each dish? Does having GM foods in the same refrigerator or kitchen taint the whole menu? (Is this something new for the health dept to check up on?) -- What about foods sourced outside CA? This means raw ingredients, processed and packaged food. Who goes to other states ( or foreign countries) to test / verify? (It's useless to have a law that doesn't include a process for verifying the labeling is correct ) -- What about mail order? No ordering out of area non-GM food if the seller can't verify that their ingredients are non-GM ( harder to do if they're sourced from a place where that's not a requirement)
Depending on the costs involved it might just be cheaper for businesses who want to sell food in CA to put a warning up similar to the Prop 65 warnings: "Food sold here may contain GM products" and then be free from having to maintain the records needed to avoid liability for any miss-marked product.
The people who want to avoid, or at least know about, GM foods could have spent their money on creating an independent infrastructure to monitor food producers and give them seal of approval on foods they verified was pure non-GM. Those same people could then foot the bill for that infrastructure and any additional costs the producers incur and pass along in the form of price increases. This is not unlike foods certified as Kosher or Halal.
Those prices increases for non-GM food will be there if it's legislated though, since it's unlikely that anyone would investigate a producer who labeled their product as GM. Only the un-labeled ( or labeled non-GM) will be called upon to prove it. That's the only way to prevent unscrupulous sellers from putting out cheaper GM foodstuff and lying about it. So while the labeling is supposed to be forced on the GM products the biggest financial burden will be on the non-GM producers. Considering much of the GM crops are intended to increase yield ( and decrease cost ) the gap between GM and non-GM costs is liable to get bigger if the non-GM have new regulations to adhere to.
Google could have this benefit in lieu of paying for policies that pay a multiple of the annual salary like some other companies have. Or they could have policies on the employees that pay Google 10x the salary and they're sharing 50% of that as the as the primary benefit, the remainder funding the benefits for children that carry on until they're 19 (or 23)
What's interesting is that the article says the 50% pay benefit is for spouses or domestic partners, doesn't mentioned beneficiaries. If that's accurate then single employees don't have the same benefit paid out to anyone. That would be different than an insurance policy where you can designate the recipient. The article says that this company benefit would apply to most of their 34k employees, but that would only be the case if most of the employees had partners and/or children.
That's exactly what I do. I have a private mailbox that is located inside my local supermarket. Unlike a box at the post office they'll accept packaged delivered by any carrier, not just USPS. Anything that needs a signature gets signed for, including alcohol. It's a commercial address, so based on the article it should cost less for Amazon to ship there, and there's never a re-delivery issue.
The only thing problem I have with the dedicated Amazon boxes is that you're only going to get Amazon packages there, you'll be on your own for getting something from another company delivered. I'd prefer my current setup where it gets everything from letters to magazines to packages. If Amazon is paying rent on the lockers then I'd be happy if they subsidized the cost of my current mailbox. Maybe a discount on my Prime membership based on the packages I have delivered to a commercial address.
As there was no wind the flags all had a bar at the top to hold the flag perpendicular to the pole. They'd stay that way until UV destroyed them so much that it just fell off.
I figured they'll jump on the statement that all of the flags are still standing *except* Apollo 11's. They can then claim that one was faked to get in under the wire to hit the moon in the 60s on the first attempt while the subsequent ones were real.
The answer to the question about a large database doesn't quite answer the question. It says that a receiver wouldn't download a database but create it's own map. That doesn't address the size of the local database, if the receiver covers a large area that would suggest a large(r) database.
If it's not downloaded then it appears that the receiver is dependent on GPS or equivalent for the initial positioning. If you visit an area for the first time it better be available or you're not going to be building up your personal database. Having the receivers be self-learning dodges the whole messy requirement for an infrastructure to handle the data collection, but it means all the receivers start out as mo more useful than a standard GPS receiver.
None of this says that fingerprinting the local RF environment isn't a good adjunct to dedicated positioning technologies, but it does look like the mechanics of acquiring the fingerprint to compare has been glossed over.
While I understand that weight is key, 10k seemed a little high for the DNA sample. A single cell is sufficient to "get your DNA on the moon". I would think that a lower cost would result in many more people taking that option and increased financial contributions.
Granted, having to farm out the DNA collection and storage process is eating up money that isn't going to the launch, and the keeping the resulting samples small will cost more than just sending any cheek scrapings that come in. Even with the 10k price it's only $3500 higher than the next donor level that includes all but the DNA sent to the moon.
Their marketing department might want to revisit this. To be honest though, they're not likely to lower the amount enough to interest me.
One interesting challenge not mentioned in the description of BAE's system is how they create the map. GPS has relatively few satellites and they broadcast their positions which is used by a receiver to determine it's own position. Relying on other radio sources will mean having them all mapped. Either the receiver needs knowledge of all of these ( unlikely) or it gets updates for it's local area periodically over a data channel. The map is also likely to be more than just an antenna's location, but data as to how it's received based on local topography. Alternatively it could send a snapshot of what radio signals it receives and the position is actually determined back at a server and relayed back to it. Either way seems to presume a separate data connection to the receiver to either load the whole database of signals sources ( and update it ) or a continuous connection to get the local database as it goes.
Using other signals of opportunity would be a good way to augment GPS, but surely not a replacement. Not being a replacement, I'd have a hard time calling it a rival.
Can't get to the Slashdotted page, but this does sound like it could have been an interesting online phone game. Two people each pick a Wikipedia entry. Then both search for the path between them ( with some agreement on origin/destination ). The game itself keeping track of the number of steps.
Of course a site that automatically traces the path ruins this. It would probably also result in people salting pages with links to more generic ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the two states that recently legalized pot were NOT for medical use.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-marijuana-legalization-idUSBRE8A602D20121107
I can only guess that the author of the article thinks that "rebooted" means "plugged in and turned on". When I first saw the title I thought it meant that it had been running for years and was to undergo a rare re-start.
Can't buy in California
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/18/magazine/tm-dragee51
I'm saving the one unopened set I have. I'm storing them with my lawn darts. Maybe I'll put them in a box with my Scrabble dictionary I bought when I heard the new edition would remove "offensive" words, and my green laser pointer if enough idiots shine them at police helicopters that they get banned too.
Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?
The people who count the votes are watched carefully by representatives of both major parties and sometimes by minor party candidates, looking for signs of errors or cheating. By contrast, the people who want to pay us for votes are harder to keep track of.
I should have been more explicit. People who count the votes include: those who write the voting machine s/w, those who service the machines, those who set up the machines, poll workers, those who transport the votes, those who collect absentee ballots, those who count absentee ballots ( and associated machines, s/w and maintenance )
Votes aren't all counted by hand with watchers looking over their shoulders. That might be the case in Dixville Notch, NH, but not everywhere. It would be my lack of trust in the large group of unknown people fiddling with my vote that I'd want to be able to check up on.
This rationale means that citizen votes that carry a little more weight than throwing a coin in a wishing well can't be "sold". But a senator/congressman who votes on something that has a much more direct effect can and are sold every day.
Conveniently, keeping voters from having a receipt prevents them from verifying how (or if ) their vote was recorded. This suggests the question: Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?
If you're in the election fraud business, which would be tougher? Buy raw votes and require validation from each voter, or buy a person or persons involved in the tallying of those votes? (or hire a 3rd party to tamper with electronic voting systems )
First shoot it with a .458 magnum several times (An elephant gun to those who don't know calibers and it's has MUCH more of a punch than a .50 caliber. A 20mm cannon would be better, but I have yet to see a rifle for that.), start a bonfire (you're NOT going to butcher the beast! IT's too big), and then when it's done, take a machete and hack off chunks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ
That was back before HD and encrypted HDMI. The cable box took the digital signal from the cable provider and it was converted to analog video in the. The TiVo/ReplayTV took the analog video and digitized it before storing on the hard drive. When watching it the DVR converted it back to analog video again. Not exactly the best approach for high fidelity viewing.
If you could control a new box today with an older DVR you might be able to do that, recording the analog output. ( provided it doesn't have copy protection and the DVR refuses to record it which is a strong possibility ) Now if there was a cable box that didn't have HDCP on it's output, then you could do that with a properly equipped DVR.
Funny you should ask.
Baseball is also above the law when it comes to monopolies:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Baseball_Club_v._National_League
That's not to imply that Google is a monopoly, just that there's a precedent for excusing an organization from rules that apply to all the rest.
Can you "buy" anything from the Play store? I know I can get music as MP3 from Amazon, but haven't tried music from Play. Anything else is DRM'd and not easily transportable, is it? I don't pay for books or movies from Amazon for that reason.
That's why my approach is to reject any hardware that is intended to restrict your access to content from other sources (or stuff you might already own). Now if it was free and they were hoping to make money on me buying new content, maybe I'd be tempted. But if the price is close to the same as an open device, no reason to encourage them to keep making these devices.
I'm OK ( if not happy ) with Amazon selling DRM'd Kindle books that can be accessed via Kindle apps on wide range of platforms. But I might want to get a book from B&N or Google and I'd prefer my device didn't restrict me to purchasing from a single store.
Unfortunately there's enough sheeple out there to make hardware that's intentionally crippled to restrict choice a viable business model.
I spent most of the 80's working on flight simulators that had rows of cabinets on raised flooring. One sim was supposed to be at 70F and the temp was usually so stable that if it was up more than a few degrees we could tell by feel and smell as soon as we walked in the room.
By shear luck I worked on simulators in Las Vegas, New Mexico and South Korea, all places that in the summer you really wouldn't want to be working outside. The constant temp during working hours was great ( though I think it made me more of a wimp for temp extremes when I went outside ) Thinking about the oil immersion and what I'd guess would be warmer ambient temps in computer rooms is a little sad. It was the extra cool computer rooms that I worked in that added to the appeal of my job back then.
The only way I can see that working out mathematically is that their offspring ate them both.
As the earth rotates approx 28 times the rate of the moon's orbit, said string would be winding around the earth like a spool. So either the string will break as the attachment point on the earth moves away, or given infinite strength it will reel in the moon to impact in approx 9 days.
So if the imaginary string is fragile it will snap. If it's sufficiently strong then no, the moon would no longer orbit the earth.
I guess some hyperbole comes in handy when you're trying for grants and other funding, it's definitely the norm for reporters. In the article though at least the researching team isn't quoted saying they observed it happening, but that they found evidence of it having happened. Another supposed scientist from Spain had to through in the "caught in the act" line though.
Granted something that far away will never be observed as it happened, but it's not like they observed the occurrence as it appeared here. It's like the difference between seeing the blood on the ground and a body and seeing the person being shot. One is seeing the act, one is seeing the evidence.
It's OK to demand that it be listed. And if who you buy from doesn't list it, don't buy from them. Making it a law just wastes many millions of dollars. The problem with legislation is that it's legislation. If enough people want to boycott GM foods then they'll be less economically viable and they'll have more non-GM food to choose from. This has the added benefit of self-verification of far-away farms problematic, so those wanting to avoid GM foods will be more likely to buy local.
When labeling becomes government mandated then lots of money comes into play. And of course graft and corruption always follows money.
-- Who checks to see if a product is labeled non-GM ( or not labeled GM) correctly? Can the product be tested or does it require access to the process of growing and processing?
-- How many steps away from the original product is GM labeling necessary? If the product is canned, frozen, dried? (requires more bureaucracy to monitor/enforce)
-- What about meat products where the feed was GM crops?
-- Does it make any yard waste now "toxic" because someone might have put GM corncobs in with the grass clippings? Don't want to use that compost on your organic tomatoes.
--What about subsequent products made from the original product that want to avoid the GM label? Can the makers of these products go by labels only or do they have to research themselves to avoid liability? (requires even more bureaucracy to monitor/enforce ), If they go by labels only do they have record keeping requirements?
-- What about restaurants that serve food that want to avoid putting "GM" next to every item? Do they have to certify each dish? Does having GM foods in the same refrigerator or kitchen taint the whole menu? (Is this something new for the health dept to check up on?)
-- What about foods sourced outside CA? This means raw ingredients, processed and packaged food. Who goes to other states ( or foreign countries) to test / verify? (It's useless to have a law that doesn't include a process for verifying the labeling is correct )
-- What about mail order? No ordering out of area non-GM food if the seller can't verify that their ingredients are non-GM ( harder to do if they're sourced from a place where that's not a requirement)
Depending on the costs involved it might just be cheaper for businesses who want to sell food in CA to put a warning up similar to the Prop 65 warnings: "Food sold here may contain GM products" and then be free from having to maintain the records needed to avoid liability for any miss-marked product.
The people who want to avoid, or at least know about, GM foods could have spent their money on creating an independent infrastructure to monitor food producers and give them seal of approval on foods they verified was pure non-GM. Those same people could then foot the bill for that infrastructure and any additional costs the producers incur and pass along in the form of price increases. This is not unlike foods certified as Kosher or Halal.
Those prices increases for non-GM food will be there if it's legislated though, since it's unlikely that anyone would investigate a producer who labeled their product as GM. Only the un-labeled ( or labeled non-GM) will be called upon to prove it. That's the only way to prevent unscrupulous sellers from putting out cheaper GM foodstuff and lying about it. So while the labeling is supposed to be forced on the GM products the biggest financial burden will be on the non-GM producers. Considering much of the GM crops are intended to increase yield ( and decrease cost ) the gap between GM and non-GM costs is liable to get bigger if the non-GM have new regulations to adhere to.
Google could have this benefit in lieu of paying for policies that pay a multiple of the annual salary like some other companies have. Or they could have policies on the employees that pay Google 10x the salary and they're sharing 50% of that as the as the primary benefit, the remainder funding the benefits for children that carry on until they're 19 (or 23)
What's interesting is that the article says the 50% pay benefit is for spouses or domestic partners, doesn't mentioned beneficiaries. If that's accurate then single employees don't have the same benefit paid out to anyone. That would be different than an insurance policy where you can designate the recipient. The article says that this company benefit would apply to most of their 34k employees, but that would only be the case if most of the employees had partners and/or children.
That's exactly what I do. I have a private mailbox that is located inside my local supermarket. Unlike a box at the post office they'll accept packaged delivered by any carrier, not just USPS. Anything that needs a signature gets signed for, including alcohol.
It's a commercial address, so based on the article it should cost less for Amazon to ship there, and there's never a re-delivery issue.
The only thing problem I have with the dedicated Amazon boxes is that you're only going to get Amazon packages there, you'll be on your own for getting something from another company delivered. I'd prefer my current setup where it gets everything from letters to magazines to packages. If Amazon is paying rent on the lockers then I'd be happy if they subsidized the cost of my current mailbox. Maybe a discount on my Prime membership based on the packages I have delivered to a commercial address.
As there was no wind the flags all had a bar at the top to hold the flag perpendicular to the pole. They'd stay that way until UV destroyed them so much that it just fell off.
I figured they'll jump on the statement that all of the flags are still standing *except* Apollo 11's. They can then claim that one was faked to get in under the wire to hit the moon in the 60s on the first attempt while the subsequent ones were real.
The answer to the question about a large database doesn't quite answer the question. It says that a receiver wouldn't download a database but create it's own map. That doesn't address the size of the local database, if the receiver covers a large area that would suggest a large(r) database.
If it's not downloaded then it appears that the receiver is dependent on GPS or equivalent for the initial positioning. If you visit an area for the first time it better be available or you're not going to be building up your personal database. Having the receivers be self-learning dodges the whole messy requirement for an infrastructure to handle the data collection, but it means all the receivers start out as mo more useful than a standard GPS receiver.
None of this says that fingerprinting the local RF environment isn't a good adjunct to dedicated positioning technologies, but it does look like the mechanics of acquiring the fingerprint to compare has been glossed over.
What nefarious plans do you have for when you get your gamma ray-mutated DNA back?
While I understand that weight is key, 10k seemed a little high for the DNA sample. A single cell is sufficient to "get your DNA on the moon". I would think that a lower cost would result in many more people taking that option and increased financial contributions.
Granted, having to farm out the DNA collection and storage process is eating up money that isn't going to the launch, and the keeping the resulting samples small will cost more than just sending any cheek scrapings that come in. Even with the 10k price it's only $3500 higher than the next donor level that includes all but the DNA sent to the moon.
Their marketing department might want to revisit this. To be honest though, they're not likely to lower the amount enough to interest me.
This isn't really a new concept. Rosum was doing this years ago, calling it RadioCamera. They used GPS to record a broad range of signals, including reflections, and map them out. Using that data they built a map that could be used to locate a receiver.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trimble-and-rosum-team-to-develop-universal-positioning-technology-74497582.html
When Rosum liquidated it's assets they were bought by TruePosition: http://www.trueposition.com/technology/
One interesting challenge not mentioned in the description of BAE's system is how they create the map. GPS has relatively few satellites and they broadcast their positions which is used by a receiver to determine it's own position. Relying on other radio sources will mean having them all mapped. Either the receiver needs knowledge of all of these ( unlikely) or it gets updates for it's local area periodically over a data channel. The map is also likely to be more than just an antenna's location, but data as to how it's received based on local topography. Alternatively it could send a snapshot of what radio signals it receives and the position is actually determined back at a server and relayed back to it. Either way seems to presume a separate data connection to the receiver to either load the whole database of signals sources ( and update it ) or a continuous connection to get the local database as it goes.
Using other signals of opportunity would be a good way to augment GPS, but surely not a replacement. Not being a replacement, I'd have a hard time calling it a rival.
Can't get to the Slashdotted page, but this does sound like it could have been an interesting online phone game. Two people each pick a Wikipedia entry. Then both search for the path between them ( with some agreement on origin/destination ). The game itself keeping track of the number of steps.
Of course a site that automatically traces the path ruins this. It would probably also result in people salting pages with links to more generic ones.