Not sure what your point was or is (regardless of the fact that in spite of having Wikipedia right in front of you, you seem to think that Apple Corps, of which Apple Records is a subsidiary, renamed itself at some point)...
Think you have the wrong link there. I can't find the relevant filings but I'm almost certain that Apple Corps filed their first Apple trademark before Apple Computer did. It's irrelevant, because the two companies have not been permitted to use their respective trademarks on the basis that "Apple" is a word in the dictionary, as GP suggested is a valid argument, but because they trade in different markets (or in some cases, by out-of-court agreement).
— n
1. The round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh.
2. An unrelated fruit that resembles this in some way.
Go on, I dare you to open a store, pub or any other establishment named "Apple".
The protocol for ambiguous stationary right of way situations is pretty simple. If you think without 100% certainty you're being yielded to, you creep forward and watch the other car. You never go fast enough to cause a collision if you're wrong, and the faster you get the less ambiguity there is. This happens all the time with all-human participants when the kindly old lady isn't in fact waving like crazy. The difference with self-driving cars is that the truly correct solution is to get the little old lady off the road and into a safer vehicle as soon as possible.
Your link says nothing about pumped storage. Britain's only pumped hydro storage scheme has an installed capacity exceeding all the country's hydro generation put together. How this measures up against the country's total reserve needs is probably a more subtle question...
According to the UK Highway Code, braking from 70mph needs 75m to stop, and a further 21m travelled while reacting (that's 0.7s). If my headlights illuminate things 96m away at all, they sure don't illuminate them as well as a street light does (which in the UK has a max spacing of 45m). This is not to mention that anything short of stadium-style floodlighting is likely to impair reaction times compared to daytime driving, so any extra light will help.
To do traffic optimization well, you really need automated vehicles so that people register their destinations with a central system that can optimize which roads each vehicle takes, optimize which lanes go in which direction, and optimize when vehicles should pass through intersections to minimize stopping...
I think there's an infrastructural barrier here, for which once it's passed we could look to eliminate stopping altogether. Once you have all your cars communicating with a central system and self-driving, you just need to optimize the gaps between vehicles and everyone can cruise through the intersection without collisions. Might look a bit terrifying for us passengers but I bet it would do wonders for congestion, perhaps to the extent that any given intersection becomes less busy and the prospect of such a system isn't even that hair-raising.
That was exactly my point. They're not entitled to use your car as a carrier of their stickers, but most people don't care if they have a sticker on their car or not, and I doubt you do either; you're just going out of your way to make sure that Honda don't get any bonus value out of your purchase of the car.
The car analogy differs from the Facebook issue in that there is no ongoing license agreement to make the advertising mandatory, but the reason people accept the advertising is the same; the "cost" of being used for this advertising is a tiny fraction of the value delivered by the service, and people are prepared to go along with it. Yes, the provider could provide the same service without advertising, but it's a perfectly valid way to subsidise a transaction whatever that transaction may be.
For instance, I like my Honda and the dealer from which I bought it, but I made them remove all the dealer stickers from the vehicle as a condition of the sale. They're not paying me to advertise for them.
Yes they are. They're giving you a car for a price that assumes in part that most people who pay that price won't be so uptight as to demand the stickers be removed. If they take them off on request then great, but unless you have a major issue with allowing people to gain more from dealing with you than the minimum they are entitled to I don't see why it's worth the effort.
As others have pointed out, coding is for building tools, not a tool to be used. While it may make some everyday tasks more efficient now, it shouldn't be that way. We have come a very long way in terms of usability, but rather than teaching a generation of kids to hate coding, let's just keep on advancing the systems we have until interacting with them is indistinguishable from other human communication. Seems a lot more direct an approach if you ask me.
You might call the source for this claim journalistic, but it is at least from within the military. Could the encryption of the transmitted data, or maybe massive redundancy, account for the size of the figure?
This might be a priority for colonization but not necessarily for exploration. People have remained in zero-g for more than a year, so we may not be all that far off knowing enough about the effects of an 18-month mission to Mars, lack of massive centrifuge notwithstanding.
I'm pretty sure that the LED panels don't cost twice as much - that's just what they're charging for the development costs in making it into a tileable, controllable system. So I'm really saying that if you can put together a network of TVs for less than $1000/sqm INCLUDING the effort required, you could probably also buy some LEDs and some diffuser film and do that yourself. I think you'd find some graphical output like HDMI does in the end work out as the most direct way to control a few thousand or more voltages.
Sounds like a lot of effort to crunch far more data than you really need to render on the ceiling. An HDMI cable can manage up to 8,847,360 pixels; at 36 LEDs per square foot (even assuming these LEDs do full colour) that's 245,000 square feet of office. All you need is a controller to interpret an HDMI signal and distribute it to those LEDs, and a home computer.
The post was obviously written in the indicative mood, not the imperative. Writing a statement with no instruction to act on its value is a perfectly valid way of implying that it evaluates to true.
Not really; I'm sure that those of all peoples have stark experience demonstrating that almost anyone can trust one's government. They may know best how unwise or misplaced such trust would be, but plenty of people do live their lives without questioning the authority that governs their circumstances.
What some find more offensive is that many of these people lead perfectly acceptable lives, and whatever great oppression they live under fortuitously passes them by. The truth is that these people may well have been afforded all of their true rights. A right to bear arms is just a special case of a right to self-determination of one's own rights, in this case to defend oneself from those who seek to deny those rights by force, whom some simply never encounter. Since force is just one means by which to deny rights, and even force is not always overwhelmed by force, it's pretty pointless to prescribe specific means to defend one's rights at all.
Declaring a right that you intend (as a government or otherwise) to seek to enable people to exercise freely, is much easier than seeking to thwart every last attempt, including your own, to deny them of those rights.
If Amazon are actually making use of this patent it's a very interesting choice of approach.
I always thought the received wisdom about companies like Amazon and Google that maximise their revenues with very specific targeting was that their algorithms processed the statistics of people's behaviour and presented the suggestion/ad with the highest expected value without consideration of any qualitative explanation for why a certain thing is suggested.
This patent suggests categories are assigned to products to add artificial dimensions to the data. It's a little surprising, at least to me, if putting a label on, say, Jewish wrapping paper results in any more insightful profiling than noting that buyers of Menorah Pattern #1 wrapped gifts buy 4.6% more Kletzmer music than the average customer.
Yes, but the ISS is barely 1% further from the centre of the earth than we are. The gravitational field strength is practically the same. The pedant is wrong because when you work in the rotating reference frame of the orbiting object gravity is eliminated on the orbit, so the language is okay.
If anyone's actually interested in the real answer to this, the wind tunnel they used appears to be called MARSWIT and to compensate for gravitational differences they use walnut shell dust among other particles as their working soil.
To fully correct for gravity all you have to do is match the ratio of the air density to the particle density. Since rock is about 5 times denser than wood but Earth air is about 20 times denser than Martian air, they don't seem to be fully compensated - but perhaps at 80 mph equivalent winds the important accelerations are all much larger than 4m/s (g on Mars) and so the difference in gravitational effects isn't that important.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what your point was or is (regardless of the fact that in spite of having Wikipedia right in front of you, you seem to think that Apple Corps, of which Apple Records is a subsidiary, renamed itself at some point)...
Think you have the wrong link there. I can't find the relevant filings but I'm almost certain that Apple Corps filed their first Apple trademark before Apple Computer did. It's irrelevant, because the two companies have not been permitted to use their respective trademarks on the basis that "Apple" is a word in the dictionary, as GP suggested is a valid argument, but because they trade in different markets (or in some cases, by out-of-court agreement).
A hashtag using the pound sign
Or, as we call it across the pond, the hash sign.
apple (apl)
— n
1. The round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh.
2. An unrelated fruit that resembles this in some way.
Go on, I dare you to open a store, pub or any other establishment named "Apple".
The protocol for ambiguous stationary right of way situations is pretty simple. If you think without 100% certainty you're being yielded to, you creep forward and watch the other car. You never go fast enough to cause a collision if you're wrong, and the faster you get the less ambiguity there is. This happens all the time with all-human participants when the kindly old lady isn't in fact waving like crazy. The difference with self-driving cars is that the truly correct solution is to get the little old lady off the road and into a safer vehicle as soon as possible.
Your link says nothing about pumped storage. Britain's only pumped hydro storage scheme has an installed capacity exceeding all the country's hydro generation put together. How this measures up against the country's total reserve needs is probably a more subtle question...
According to the UK Highway Code, braking from 70mph needs 75m to stop, and a further 21m travelled while reacting (that's 0.7s). If my headlights illuminate things 96m away at all, they sure don't illuminate them as well as a street light does (which in the UK has a max spacing of 45m). This is not to mention that anything short of stadium-style floodlighting is likely to impair reaction times compared to daytime driving, so any extra light will help.
To do traffic optimization well, you really need automated vehicles so that people register their destinations with a central system that can optimize which roads each vehicle takes, optimize which lanes go in which direction, and optimize when vehicles should pass through intersections to minimize stopping...
I think there's an infrastructural barrier here, for which once it's passed we could look to eliminate stopping altogether. Once you have all your cars communicating with a central system and self-driving, you just need to optimize the gaps between vehicles and everyone can cruise through the intersection without collisions. Might look a bit terrifying for us passengers but I bet it would do wonders for congestion, perhaps to the extent that any given intersection becomes less busy and the prospect of such a system isn't even that hair-raising.
That was exactly my point. They're not entitled to use your car as a carrier of their stickers, but most people don't care if they have a sticker on their car or not, and I doubt you do either; you're just going out of your way to make sure that Honda don't get any bonus value out of your purchase of the car.
The car analogy differs from the Facebook issue in that there is no ongoing license agreement to make the advertising mandatory, but the reason people accept the advertising is the same; the "cost" of being used for this advertising is a tiny fraction of the value delivered by the service, and people are prepared to go along with it. Yes, the provider could provide the same service without advertising, but it's a perfectly valid way to subsidise a transaction whatever that transaction may be.
For instance, I like my Honda and the dealer from which I bought it, but I made them remove all the dealer stickers from the vehicle as a condition of the sale. They're not paying me to advertise for them.
Yes they are. They're giving you a car for a price that assumes in part that most people who pay that price won't be so uptight as to demand the stickers be removed. If they take them off on request then great, but unless you have a major issue with allowing people to gain more from dealing with you than the minimum they are entitled to I don't see why it's worth the effort.
As others have pointed out, coding is for building tools, not a tool to be used. While it may make some everyday tasks more efficient now, it shouldn't be that way. We have come a very long way in terms of usability, but rather than teaching a generation of kids to hate coding, let's just keep on advancing the systems we have until interacting with them is indistinguishable from other human communication. Seems a lot more direct an approach if you ask me.
And people wonder why Firefox is losing ground and the future of Google+ hasn't been written off as a foregone conclusion...
I believe not getting a loan for a house was step two ("Avoid all debt").
In fairness, one definition of "consumption" of energy follows from the second law.
You might call the source for this claim journalistic, but it is at least from within the military. Could the encryption of the transmitted data, or maybe massive redundancy, account for the size of the figure?
This might be a priority for colonization but not necessarily for exploration. People have remained in zero-g for more than a year, so we may not be all that far off knowing enough about the effects of an 18-month mission to Mars, lack of massive centrifuge notwithstanding.
I'm pretty sure that the LED panels don't cost twice as much - that's just what they're charging for the development costs in making it into a tileable, controllable system. So I'm really saying that if you can put together a network of TVs for less than $1000/sqm INCLUDING the effort required, you could probably also buy some LEDs and some diffuser film and do that yourself. I think you'd find some graphical output like HDMI does in the end work out as the most direct way to control a few thousand or more voltages.
Sounds like a lot of effort to crunch far more data than you really need to render on the ceiling. An HDMI cable can manage up to 8,847,360 pixels; at 36 LEDs per square foot (even assuming these LEDs do full colour) that's 245,000 square feet of office. All you need is a controller to interpret an HDMI signal and distribute it to those LEDs, and a home computer.
The post was obviously written in the indicative mood, not the imperative. Writing a statement with no instruction to act on its value is a perfectly valid way of implying that it evaluates to true.
Not really; I'm sure that those of all peoples have stark experience demonstrating that almost anyone can trust one's government. They may know best how unwise or misplaced such trust would be, but plenty of people do live their lives without questioning the authority that governs their circumstances.
What some find more offensive is that many of these people lead perfectly acceptable lives, and whatever great oppression they live under fortuitously passes them by. The truth is that these people may well have been afforded all of their true rights. A right to bear arms is just a special case of a right to self-determination of one's own rights, in this case to defend oneself from those who seek to deny those rights by force, whom some simply never encounter. Since force is just one means by which to deny rights, and even force is not always overwhelmed by force, it's pretty pointless to prescribe specific means to defend one's rights at all.
Declaring a right that you intend (as a government or otherwise) to seek to enable people to exercise freely, is much easier than seeking to thwart every last attempt, including your own, to deny them of those rights.
If Amazon are actually making use of this patent it's a very interesting choice of approach.
I always thought the received wisdom about companies like Amazon and Google that maximise their revenues with very specific targeting was that their algorithms processed the statistics of people's behaviour and presented the suggestion/ad with the highest expected value without consideration of any qualitative explanation for why a certain thing is suggested.
This patent suggests categories are assigned to products to add artificial dimensions to the data. It's a little surprising, at least to me, if putting a label on, say, Jewish wrapping paper results in any more insightful profiling than noting that buyers of Menorah Pattern #1 wrapped gifts buy 4.6% more Kletzmer music than the average customer.
Tell that to the entire history of software uptake, ever.
Yes, but the ISS is barely 1% further from the centre of the earth than we are. The gravitational field strength is practically the same. The pedant is wrong because when you work in the rotating reference frame of the orbiting object gravity is eliminated on the orbit, so the language is okay.
RTFA. It shows them testing 3D printers in zero-gravity. No "luck" required, just sense.
If anyone's actually interested in the real answer to this, the wind tunnel they used appears to be called MARSWIT and to compensate for gravitational differences they use walnut shell dust among other particles as their working soil. To fully correct for gravity all you have to do is match the ratio of the air density to the particle density. Since rock is about 5 times denser than wood but Earth air is about 20 times denser than Martian air, they don't seem to be fully compensated - but perhaps at 80 mph equivalent winds the important accelerations are all much larger than 4m/s (g on Mars) and so the difference in gravitational effects isn't that important.