Tesla does not sell Model S sedans for more than it cost them to build it. That 4K number includes their capital investments in other projects such as the Model X which have nothing to do with Model S sales: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/0...
Framing the picture differently affects how the exposure settings are chosen by the auto-exposure algorithm since the sample points will be distributed differently in the scene than with the other cameras. If one of the exposure sample points happens to be significantly brighter than the others, then the sensitivity of the sensor could be tuned down to ensure that the picture is not saturated (the upper right of the image seems brigher than the rest of the image). This calls the validity of the test into question.
New Hampshire has a lower murder rate than France.
This is irrelevant because murder rate is not the same statistic as the rate of gun violence. The latter would be a more useful comparison.
And where is the most murder in the US? In the places with the most gun control, like Chicago. Places like New Hampshire prove unequivocally that you can have freedom and low murder rates at the same time.
This demonstrates correlation, not causation. In fact, you confirm this and contradict the premise of your argument (that gun control does not decrease the occurence of gun violence; either that or you changed arguments half way through) in the sentence that follows:
The problem of violence is not one of tools (guns, knives, hammers or plain old hands and feet) but one of economy. The most violence happens in the poorest places, this is UNIVERSALLY true, in every city, state and nation. It doesn't matter if the homicides are gun-induced or not.
What is the rate of poverty in Chicago vs. that in New Hampshire? Not to mention the fact that you're comparing an entire state with a single metropolitan area. If you're going to accuse someone of being disingenuous, at least use a more coherent argument.
Gun control alone won't stop people from murdering each other. Reducing the divide between rich and poor would likely be a more effective solution. However, I suspect this idea would be rejected as "socialism" by a large number of the US electorate.
Even if you have unlimited minutes, do you still pay long distance charges? In the affirmative case, this could probably save you money if you have many far away friends/partners/clients.
As far as I know, the energy input of sunlight in fossil fuel is ignored because that energy was input millions of years ago when the fossil fuel was organic matter. So it's probably fair to omit this factor when doing an analysis of the energy yield of ethanol (assuming of course that its total contribution is equal in all cases).
I would be interested to see more evidence, other than the "god gene", as to the genetic basis for religion. From my understanding, the genetic predisposition has more to do with determining whether or not someone is susceptible to believe in religion, but does not predicate what that belief is. If religious belief was largely predicated on genetics, we would probably see a more random distribution of belief systems.
Most of us do have a genetic predisposition to adopt a sexual orientation, it is possible that social influence is a factor in deciding what that orientation is. However, I believe the body of evidence points to genetics as the determining factor.
Their main business is not consumer graphics cards. I believe their focus is on building specialized imaging hardware for industrial systems and providing the associated image processing software (ML if I recall correctly). I imagine the margins are far greater than what they were getting building consumer GPUs.
I had the same initial thought that you did. However, I didn't realize that harvester ants do not rely on pheremones which makes their approach slightly different than the typical Ant-Colony Optimization algorithms (which have been applied to routing).
It would be interesting to know how the harvester ants communicate geographic information when they touch thier antennae. Something that may be revealed once I have the chance to read the rest of the article (beyond the abstract).
The featured article explains with a much less confusing use of pronouns:
"An attacker who successfully exploited a Gadget vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the current user," company officials said in an advisory issued Tuesday. "If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker could take complete control of the affected system."
Drug discovery is hard. Immensely hard. Failures are often and expensive and government is poorly equipped to make entrepreneurial decisions. That's why we currently rely on private companies to make the decisions on who is a good research and who is a bad researcher when a company in total only makes two or three really profitable drugs every decade. We can allow those companies to fail if they can no longer produce. It's a lot harder to let a government program "fail" like that.
I don't think the fact that the private sector is better equipped at making enterpreneurial decisions has been adequately proven by evidence (however, neither has the converse). One big problem with allowing private, for-profit, companies to be the decision makers in matters of public health has one major flaw: medications that yield high profits don't necessarily address real health problems (I'm thinking of Viagra and Cialis here), and medications that address real health problems will not necessarily yield high profits. The private sector has little interest in addressing health problems that are not profitable.
... if I make $1 a year and you make $255,999 a year together we "average" $128,000.
Your example would be more illustrative if you said 4 people make $1/year and one person makes $639,996/year, the average is $128,000 with only a single outlier (Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg subscribes to Linux Journal). The quoted statistic also doesn't account for the potentially more numerous Linux users who are too broke to subscribe to the Linux Journal.
This is another point against anyone who claims NASA, and going to space in general, is a complete waste of money.
This has always been a totally bogus argument, because you can't do a controlled experiment. Suppose that the US had never engaged in the Cold War propaganda exercise known as the space race. Later, suppose that the US had never gotten into pork-barrel projects such as the space shuttle and the ISS. What would the world have been like? We have no way of figuring out what scientific advances would have been made in this alternate history.
Although your point is true, the argument is that NASA and going to space in general is not a complete waste of money. No one is claiming that investing the money otherwise could not have yielded better results; in which case a controlled experiment would be required.
Interesting that later in the article we find the following quote from Detective Chief Superintendent Tony Porter: "This case has never been about proving an endgame and we may never know what his intentions were". So they admit to not knowing his intentions, how can they in good conscience say they are arresting him for intent?
It's like saying that "Hey, this cop might have shot two innocent people but it's very black and white thinkign to call him a murderer. I mean, he also shot three criminals that sure balances it out isn't it?".
Whether the victims are criminals or not is irrelevant in ascribing the label of murderer to the police officer. If the officer took a bank robber into a back alley, had him kneel down, then shot him in the back of the head, he would still be considered a murderer. There are your shades of grey, they are hiding in the details.
Similarly, when you're talking about fighting an unjust law by breaking it, that's implicitly a grey area: you have to distinguish between something that is criminal and something that is illegal. To say that you need to be "very black and white" in these situations is, in my opinion, an over simplification of the issues at stake. In the context of ACTA, we can go so far as to ask whether it is criminal for the law to be imposed on the people of Poland the way it is (even though it's not illegal for them to do so AFAIK). Can you then say that a DDoS attack, although illegal, is criminal if it is intended to bring awareness to these shenanigans? (although this is not to say that I agree with the method, it's just to illustrate the shades of grey)
One part of their duty is to not commit illegal activities that gets them closed down.
At this point, it has not been demonstrated whether Megaupload has committed any illegal activities (remember the presumption of innocence and all that). The problem is that it's not unfathomable for an entity to be taken down in this fashion regardless of whether they actually commited any crime; especially if SOPA/PIPA or any similar legislation ever gets passed.
It's an extreme corner case (that comment was meant to be tongue in cheek... that must have been pre-coffee sarcasm), however, the main point is that it would likely be more cost effective to swap low-cost keyboards and sanitize them "off-line".
Disposing of the top bit of your keyboard every 90 seconds seems like a serious impediment to getting any work done, and would exhaust your 150 keyboards rather quickly (in under 4 hours). However, if you're looking to have a sterilized keyboard for the day, you can use two dishwasher safe keyboards and alternate... [disposes of keyboard].
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla does not sell Model S sedans for more than it cost them to build it. That 4K number includes their capital investments in other projects such as the Model X which have nothing to do with Model S sales: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/0...
Framing the picture differently affects how the exposure settings are chosen by the auto-exposure algorithm since the sample points will be distributed differently in the scene than with the other cameras. If one of the exposure sample points happens to be significantly brighter than the others, then the sensitivity of the sensor could be tuned down to ensure that the picture is not saturated (the upper right of the image seems brigher than the rest of the image). This calls the validity of the test into question.
New Hampshire has a lower murder rate than France.
This is irrelevant because murder rate is not the same statistic as the rate of gun violence. The latter would be a more useful comparison.
And where is the most murder in the US? In the places with the most gun control, like Chicago. Places like New Hampshire prove unequivocally that you can have freedom and low murder rates at the same time.
This demonstrates correlation, not causation. In fact, you confirm this and contradict the premise of your argument (that gun control does not decrease the occurence of gun violence; either that or you changed arguments half way through) in the sentence that follows:
The problem of violence is not one of tools (guns, knives, hammers or plain old hands and feet) but one of economy. The most violence happens in the poorest places, this is UNIVERSALLY true, in every city, state and nation. It doesn't matter if the homicides are gun-induced or not.
What is the rate of poverty in Chicago vs. that in New Hampshire? Not to mention the fact that you're comparing an entire state with a single metropolitan area. If you're going to accuse someone of being disingenuous, at least use a more coherent argument. Gun control alone won't stop people from murdering each other. Reducing the divide between rich and poor would likely be a more effective solution. However, I suspect this idea would be rejected as "socialism" by a large number of the US electorate.
That statement is only valid for large values of "evil".
Even if you have unlimited minutes, do you still pay long distance charges? In the affirmative case, this could probably save you money if you have many far away friends/partners/clients.
As far as I know, the energy input of sunlight in fossil fuel is ignored because that energy was input millions of years ago when the fossil fuel was organic matter. So it's probably fair to omit this factor when doing an analysis of the energy yield of ethanol (assuming of course that its total contribution is equal in all cases).
I would be interested to see more evidence, other than the "god gene", as to the genetic basis for religion. From my understanding, the genetic predisposition has more to do with determining whether or not someone is susceptible to believe in religion, but does not predicate what that belief is. If religious belief was largely predicated on genetics, we would probably see a more random distribution of belief systems.
Most of us do have a genetic predisposition to adopt a sexual orientation, it is possible that social influence is a factor in deciding what that orientation is. However, I believe the body of evidence points to genetics as the determining factor.
Why is it bigotry to say that homosexuality should be stamped out, yet not bigotry to say religion should be stamped out?
There is one difference between the two: religion is a choice, homosexuality is not.
The Astronomical Unit (AU) is known to most as the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun
The summary omitted the word "mean". The linked article has the correct description.
mine the cavity
I can't help but think that this was an appropriate freudian slip. Unless it was done on purpose, in which case: well played sir.
Their main business is not consumer graphics cards. I believe their focus is on building specialized imaging hardware for industrial systems and providing the associated image processing software (ML if I recall correctly). I imagine the margins are far greater than what they were getting building consumer GPUs.
I had the same initial thought that you did. However, I didn't realize that harvester ants do not rely on pheremones which makes their approach slightly different than the typical Ant-Colony Optimization algorithms (which have been applied to routing). It would be interesting to know how the harvester ants communicate geographic information when they touch thier antennae. Something that may be revealed once I have the chance to read the rest of the article (beyond the abstract).
"An attacker who successfully exploited a Gadget vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the current user," company officials said in an advisory issued Tuesday. "If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker could take complete control of the affected system."
Drug discovery is hard. Immensely hard. Failures are often and expensive and government is poorly equipped to make entrepreneurial decisions. That's why we currently rely on private companies to make the decisions on who is a good research and who is a bad researcher when a company in total only makes two or three really profitable drugs every decade. We can allow those companies to fail if they can no longer produce. It's a lot harder to let a government program "fail" like that.
I don't think the fact that the private sector is better equipped at making enterpreneurial decisions has been adequately proven by evidence (however, neither has the converse). One big problem with allowing private, for-profit, companies to be the decision makers in matters of public health has one major flaw: medications that yield high profits don't necessarily address real health problems (I'm thinking of Viagra and Cialis here), and medications that address real health problems will not necessarily yield high profits. The private sector has little interest in addressing health problems that are not profitable.
... if I make $1 a year and you make $255,999 a year together we "average" $128,000.
Your example would be more illustrative if you said 4 people make $1/year and one person makes $639,996/year, the average is $128,000 with only a single outlier (Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg subscribes to Linux Journal). The quoted statistic also doesn't account for the potentially more numerous Linux users who are too broke to subscribe to the Linux Journal.
That would only be meaningful if climate change and speciation were measured using the same time scale.
This has always been a totally bogus argument, because you can't do a controlled experiment. Suppose that the US had never engaged in the Cold War propaganda exercise known as the space race. Later, suppose that the US had never gotten into pork-barrel projects such as the space shuttle and the ISS. What would the world have been like? We have no way of figuring out what scientific advances would have been made in this alternate history.
Although your point is true, the argument is that NASA and going to space in general is not a complete waste of money. No one is claiming that investing the money otherwise could not have yielded better results; in which case a controlled experiment would be required.
I believe the UK still use their own currency.
Likewise read my post, I never said they sentenced him. I said they arrested him. As far as I know judges in the UK don't go around arresting people.
Interesting that later in the article we find the following quote from Detective Chief Superintendent Tony Porter: "This case has never been about proving an endgame and we may never know what his intentions were". So they admit to not knowing his intentions, how can they in good conscience say they are arresting him for intent?
It's like saying that "Hey, this cop might have shot two innocent people but it's very black and white thinkign to call him a murderer. I mean, he also shot three criminals that sure balances it out isn't it?" .
Whether the victims are criminals or not is irrelevant in ascribing the label of murderer to the police officer. If the officer took a bank robber into a back alley, had him kneel down, then shot him in the back of the head, he would still be considered a murderer. There are your shades of grey, they are hiding in the details.
Similarly, when you're talking about fighting an unjust law by breaking it, that's implicitly a grey area: you have to distinguish between something that is criminal and something that is illegal. To say that you need to be "very black and white" in these situations is, in my opinion, an over simplification of the issues at stake. In the context of ACTA, we can go so far as to ask whether it is criminal for the law to be imposed on the people of Poland the way it is (even though it's not illegal for them to do so AFAIK). Can you then say that a DDoS attack, although illegal, is criminal if it is intended to bring awareness to these shenanigans? (although this is not to say that I agree with the method, it's just to illustrate the shades of grey)
One part of their duty is to not commit illegal activities that gets them closed down.
At this point, it has not been demonstrated whether Megaupload has committed any illegal activities (remember the presumption of innocence and all that). The problem is that it's not unfathomable for an entity to be taken down in this fashion regardless of whether they actually commited any crime; especially if SOPA/PIPA or any similar legislation ever gets passed.
First rule of Project Mayhem: Don't ask questions!
It's an extreme corner case (that comment was meant to be tongue in cheek... that must have been pre-coffee sarcasm), however, the main point is that it would likely be more cost effective to swap low-cost keyboards and sanitize them "off-line".
Disposing of the top bit of your keyboard every 90 seconds seems like a serious impediment to getting any work done, and would exhaust your 150 keyboards rather quickly (in under 4 hours). However, if you're looking to have a sterilized keyboard for the day, you can use two dishwasher safe keyboards and alternate... [disposes of keyboard].