The first story does not identify the company, other than saying that it's fairly large ("40+ devs"), but if that story is actually true, then it seems likely that the two are the same. Otherwise I think we would have heard from the customers of a second company affected by an outage.
I can't imagine any company being honest enough to put out a press release saying "We lost our customers' data because we put the root credentials of the production database in a training document, and we didn't have working backups." And calling the new guy an "ex admin" would technically be true, since they fired him.
How on earth did you figure this? This is bullshit science. You are at least totally ignoring the owners personal taste.
Well, from a frequentist perspective, the probability is either 100 % or 0 %, depending on the disc was indeed HP or not. But the witness didn't know this, nor did he know the personal taste of the driver.
From a Bayesian perspective, it depends on what assumptions we make. If we assume that the probability that a film was selected is proportional to its box office performance then the probability is on the order of 1/1000. Since people are more likely to watch movies that they haven't seen before, the probability of a recent release is much higher than an older one. (This does not apply to people who cannot afford new DVDs or to boring people who could afford to buy new things but don't. Neither of those would own a Tesla.)
Even if we also assume that Tesla owners only watch DVD's of films released in 2011, then the only goes up to 3 %. Still low enough that it would be significant if the witness was right.
The witness says a Harry Potter movie was playing. If he was making this up, then there's a less than one in a thousand chance that the DVD player actually contains a disc with a Harry Potter movie. (The last disc of the series was released on DVD in 2011. A Tesla owner would be much more likely to be watching a more recent release.)
Investigators know which disc was in the player, so they know if the witness is telling the truth.
Indeed, autopilots on boats kill people all the time. (Most common case, the guy falls overboard while taking a pee and the autopilot sails away, leaving him to drown.) Yet I've never heard of anyone arguing that they should be banned (or even that they should only be allowed on boats with indoor plumbing).
What we need is for the world's environmentalists to realize that energy storage and infrastructure projects are more important the solar cells and wind farms themselves.
When an environmentalist engineer says to an environmentalist politician that "This $100 million solar farm will be useless unless we also invest $500 million in energy storage and infrastructure" the response will always be "Why are you bashing solar cells? I'm firing you and replacing you with someone who cares about the environment." rather than "OK, I guess I'll have to find another $500 million in funding".
Signal strength decreases with distance squared, so a 12 kW signal from a balloon 20 000 meters away is as weak as a 0.3 W signal from a WiFi router 100 meters away.
It would seem they compensate for the tiny rotors with very high rpm. Increadibly noisy, and creates enormous forces on the rotor blades, but theoretically possible. The video states that they need 1 MW of power for lift-off, and that the engine provides 0.2 MW (300 hp), so it would take 0.8 MW worth of batteries. They're probably lithium polymer, like in miniature helicopters.
people who envision draconian laws always do it believing that they'll never become a victim of their own fuckery.
He wouldn't be. According to TFA, there would be an exception for people with "academic affiliations" as well as for the press, and anybody else with an audience.
If your read between the lines it's pretty clear that he's saying that only muslims could go to jail for being rickrolled, and that's OK, because think of the children!
Nope, apparently they do give you the decryption key, once you pay. If word of mouth was that it doesn't help to pay, then a lot less people would pay the ransom.
So this guy is destroying a very lucrative business model for some very evil people. It will probably not end well for him.
By the title of the paper -- A Faster Cutting Plane Method and its Implications for Combinatorial and Convex Optimization -- I would say that they are not trying to provide a truly general optimization algorithm, but one that is specific to combinatorial and convex optimization. Hence, the NFL theorem is not violated.
TFA headline gives the impression that they would be talking about a truly general algorithm, but this is actually a manifestation of the "No Competent Editor" theorem.
Nope. A negative price of electricity is not a sign that electricity is going to be cheap on average. On the contrary, it is a sign of poor infrastructure and heavy dependence on fossil fuel. (Coal and oil fired plants are expensive to take off-line, which is why the price of energy fluctuates wildly when the wind changes.) With better infrastructure and more hydro power, the price would not have fluctuated into negative, but would have been lower on average.
Exactly. Why would anyone spend $60 on electronics that (only) stops self-driving cars? If you need to stop cars for legitimate reasons, then a "stop" sign is sufficient. Self-driving cars are programmed to stop in a safe way when they encounter one of those (as are human drivers). If you want to stop cars because you're an asshole, then any reasonably large object will work on both self-driving and human-driven cars.
Something that is questionable is you would still need a way to kill your angular momentum otherwise as you wind yourself down to land your angular velocity will increase.
If the spacecraft trajectory intersects that of the comet, then the angular momentum is zero.
This will not be the case exactly, because then the spacecraft would crash into the comet, but the distance doesn't have to be very large either. The resulting angular momentum would be relatively easy to eliminate using a conventional thruster when the tether is at maximum length. The fuel usage would be a very small fraction of what would have been required to rendez-vous without the tether.
If not in a hurry, then it would also be possible to utilize the torque created by the gradient in the gravitational field of the sun (while changing the distance between comet and spacecraft to control the it). No fuel required.
An android phone is essentially a computer in itself. You don't need to tether it to a second computer to use a lot of bandwidth. You can share its screen with a TV or a projector to stream movies, or even connect a hard-drive (using USB OTG) and download "linux distributions" via bit-torrent on it. T-mobile have no way of knowing who is tethering and who is simply using a lot of data on the phone. (Well, actually they could easily find out by deep-packet inspection, and maybe they are doing that. I bet the fine print in their contract says they are allowed to.)
Common sense says that nothing can be advertised as unlimited, because nothing on Earth is unlimited.
No, it doesn't. "Unlimited" has a very well-defined meaning that is obvious for most people. "Unlimited" usage of a 6 Mbit connection means that you can use the full 6 Mbit 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (This works out to about 2 TB/mo.)
Obviously, this is bad for the network, which is why offering an "unlimited" wireless plan is an incredibly stupid idea. But that is what T-mobile did. Blaming their customers for their own mistake and calling them "thieves" is pretty low.
TFA abbreviates the quote from T-Mobile CEO John Legere. Here it is in full:
"Marketing thought we could call it 'unlimited', because that would sell. But then engineering pointed out that our network couldn't support that kind of load. So we had legal work out deals with the handset manufacturers so that the phone would limit data usage anyway. That way, we could call it 'unlimited', but in reality, it would be limited; Clever eh? But our customers noticed, and are downloading apps that hide their tether usage, rooting their phones, writing code to mask their activity, etc. It's all their fault. I mean, obviously we have the right to lie to our customers, and put whatever software we want on their phones. But now they are changing that software! They are thieves I tell you. THIEVES!"
Didn't watch the video either, but according to TFS it tells you how to build your own, and that's not hard to figure out:
* Go to Google and type in "900 MHz ethernet extender", click on one of the ads an buy one. * Connect it to a wireless router, and set the router to "bridge" mode. * Congratulations, you now have a ProxyHam *... * Profit!
Neither of those is as precise as "catfish". You can "defraud", "scam" or "swindle" someone in person or online, using your real identity or a fake one.
Slashdot Mirror
The first story does not identify the company, other than saying that it's fairly large ("40+ devs"), but if that story is actually true, then it seems likely that the two are the same. Otherwise I think we would have heard from the customers of a second company affected by an outage.
I can't imagine any company being honest enough to put out a press release saying "We lost our customers' data because we put the root credentials of the production database in a training document, and we didn't have working backups." And calling the new guy an "ex admin" would technically be true, since they fired him.
And you wanted "affect", not "effect".
Maybe not.
The Cooper hijacking was in 1971. The "U.S. will not yield to blackmail" doctrine was instated by Carter during the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis.
How on earth did you figure this? This is bullshit science. You are at least totally ignoring the owners personal taste.
Well, from a frequentist perspective, the probability is either 100 % or 0 %, depending on the disc was indeed HP or not. But the witness didn't know this, nor did he know the personal taste of the driver.
From a Bayesian perspective, it depends on what assumptions we make. If we assume that the probability that a film was selected is proportional to its box office performance then the probability is on the order of 1/1000. Since people are more likely to watch movies that they haven't seen before, the probability of a recent release is much higher than an older one. (This does not apply to people who cannot afford new DVDs or to boring people who could afford to buy new things but don't. Neither of those would own a Tesla.)
Even if we also assume that Tesla owners only watch DVD's of films released in 2011, then the only goes up to 3 %. Still low enough that it would be significant if the witness was right.
The witness says a Harry Potter movie was playing. If he was making this up, then there's a less than one in a thousand chance that the DVD player actually contains a disc with a Harry Potter movie. (The last disc of the series was released on DVD in 2011. A Tesla owner would be much more likely to be watching a more recent release.)
Investigators know which disc was in the player, so they know if the witness is telling the truth.
Indeed, autopilots on boats kill people all the time. (Most common case, the guy falls overboard while taking a pee and the autopilot sails away, leaving him to drown.) Yet I've never heard of anyone arguing that they should be banned (or even that they should only be allowed on boats with indoor plumbing).
What we need is for the world's environmentalists to realize that energy storage and infrastructure projects are more important the solar cells and wind farms themselves.
When an environmentalist engineer says to an environmentalist politician that "This $100 million solar farm will be useless unless we also invest $500 million in energy storage and infrastructure" the response will always be "Why are you bashing solar cells? I'm firing you and replacing you with someone who cares about the environment." rather than "OK, I guess I'll have to find another $500 million in funding".
Signal strength decreases with distance squared, so a 12 kW signal from a balloon 20 000 meters away is as weak as a 0.3 W signal from a WiFi router 100 meters away.
Fortunately German courts are not quite stupid enough to accept that as a valid excuse for what is very clearly unsolicited advertising. (FTFY)
In many countries, free speech wins over consumer protection. A notable example is the USA, where "corporations are people".
It would seem they compensate for the tiny rotors with very high rpm. Increadibly noisy, and creates enormous forces on the rotor blades, but theoretically possible. The video states that they need 1 MW of power for lift-off, and that the engine provides 0.2 MW (300 hp), so it would take 0.8 MW worth of batteries. They're probably lithium polymer, like in miniature helicopters.
people who envision draconian laws always do it believing that they'll never become a victim of their own fuckery.
He wouldn't be. According to TFA, there would be an exception for people with "academic affiliations" as well as for the press, and anybody else with an audience.
If your read between the lines it's pretty clear that he's saying that only muslims could go to jail for being rickrolled, and that's OK, because think of the children!
"it can be more than 20%" -Yeah, it can be an infinite number of %, if the actual distance travelled is zero, and the random error is not.
Nope, apparently they do give you the decryption key, once you pay. If word of mouth was that it doesn't help to pay, then a lot less people would pay the ransom.
So this guy is destroying a very lucrative business model for some very evil people. It will probably not end well for him.
By the title of the paper -- A Faster Cutting Plane Method and its Implications for Combinatorial and Convex Optimization -- I would say that they are not trying to provide a truly general optimization algorithm, but one that is specific to combinatorial and convex optimization. Hence, the NFL theorem is not violated.
TFA headline gives the impression that they would be talking about a truly general algorithm, but this is actually a manifestation of the "No Competent Editor" theorem.
Or they have the same chip, but his friend has an app that uses a lot of cpu cycles in the background.
Yes, but a cease-and-desist would have been sufficient for defending the trademark.
Nope. That's not what this is. It's about not downloading stuff you don't need, like the iPad-size bitmaps when using an iPhone.
Nope. A negative price of electricity is not a sign that electricity is going to be cheap on average. On the contrary, it is a sign of poor infrastructure and heavy dependence on fossil fuel. (Coal and oil fired plants are expensive to take off-line, which is why the price of energy fluctuates wildly when the wind changes.) With better infrastructure and more hydro power, the price would not have fluctuated into negative, but would have been lower on average.
Exactly. Why would anyone spend $60 on electronics that (only) stops self-driving cars? If you need to stop cars for legitimate reasons, then a "stop" sign is sufficient. Self-driving cars are programmed to stop in a safe way when they encounter one of those (as are human drivers). If you want to stop cars because you're an asshole, then any reasonably large object will work on both self-driving and human-driven cars.
Something that is questionable is you would still need a way to kill your angular momentum otherwise as you wind yourself down to land your angular velocity will increase.
If the spacecraft trajectory intersects that of the comet, then the angular momentum is zero.
This will not be the case exactly, because then the spacecraft would crash into the comet, but the distance doesn't have to be very large either. The resulting angular momentum would be relatively easy to eliminate using a conventional thruster when the tether is at maximum length. The fuel usage would be a very small fraction of what would have been required to rendez-vous without the tether.
If not in a hurry, then it would also be possible to utilize the torque created by the gradient in the gravitational field of the sun (while changing the distance between comet and spacecraft to control the it). No fuel required.
An android phone is essentially a computer in itself. You don't need to tether it to a second computer to use a lot of bandwidth. You can share its screen with a TV or a projector to stream movies, or even connect a hard-drive (using USB OTG) and download "linux distributions" via bit-torrent on it. T-mobile have no way of knowing who is tethering and who is simply using a lot of data on the phone. (Well, actually they could easily find out by deep-packet inspection, and maybe they are doing that. I bet the fine print in their contract says they are allowed to.)
Common sense says that nothing can be advertised as unlimited, because nothing on Earth is unlimited.
No, it doesn't. "Unlimited" has a very well-defined meaning that is obvious for most people. "Unlimited" usage of a 6 Mbit connection means that you can use the full 6 Mbit 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (This works out to about 2 TB/mo.)
Obviously, this is bad for the network, which is why offering an "unlimited" wireless plan is an incredibly stupid idea. But that is what T-mobile did. Blaming their customers for their own mistake and calling them "thieves" is pretty low.
TFA abbreviates the quote from T-Mobile CEO John Legere. Here it is in full:
"Marketing thought we could call it 'unlimited', because that would sell. But then engineering pointed out that our network couldn't support that kind of load. So we had legal work out deals with the handset manufacturers so that the phone would limit data usage anyway. That way, we could call it 'unlimited', but in reality, it would be limited; Clever eh? But our customers noticed, and are downloading apps that hide their tether usage, rooting their phones, writing code to mask their activity, etc. It's all their fault. I mean, obviously we have the right to lie to our customers, and put whatever software we want on their phones. But now they are changing that software! They are thieves I tell you. THIEVES!"
Didn't watch the video either, but according to TFS it tells you how to build your own, and that's not hard to figure out:
* Go to Google and type in "900 MHz ethernet extender", click on one of the ads an buy one. ...
* Connect it to a wireless router, and set the router to "bridge" mode.
* Congratulations, you now have a ProxyHam
*
* Profit!
Neither of those is as precise as "catfish". You can "defraud", "scam" or "swindle" someone in person or online, using your real identity or a fake one.