Not if I'm paying for the electricity. I don't really feel like paying 10% extra to charge my car for the convenience of not having to plug it in. How much more does this charging system cost and how much does it add to my car's weight? Qualitatively, let's estimate that as "too much."
I firmly believe that the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be "as is". Black and White. It means what it says and trying to conjure up a ruling because times change a little bit doesn't give any court the right or power to use a personal interpretation to make a ruling. Why do I believe this? Well they also gave the power to add, remove, amend the constitution through a very lengthy process. This tells me that changing the constitution in any way was very important and it was not meant to be arbitrarily changed at a whim or misinterpreted by someones prejudice. Think about it - technically any judge on any court can say , "well i interpret this to mean that so I am ruling X". That gives too much power to judges and I think most of us here understand that the founders didn't want this..
You can firmly believe that but you would be wrong. The intentionally made the words vague, ensuring that the courts and your legislators would have to interpret it according to their judgment.
I kind of agree with you that in principle it would be better to default to privacy - only this approach makes tracking completely impossible, because who is going to enable tracking? Answer - Noone - which mean none of the interested parties will want to conform to it.
With the default set the other way the companies can keep tracking people and keep their profits whilst simultaneously claming the high ground. The people who want privacy can enable the setting and the ignorant/apathetic can continue with the status quo. If you want a voluntary system this is the only possible way it could work. The only alternative is to outlaw tracking, which is fine, but that still doesn't guarantee you won't be tracked.
A voluntary system can't work because there is more money to be made by ignoring the setting than there is by implementing DNT when requested.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will probably uphold the lower court's judgment, not because they think the law is just, but because they will agree that the lower court was right about what the law IS. It's a stupid law and you might even see that expressed in the opinion, but they'll probably say that it's not their job to decide whether the law is stupid or unjust.
Eating yogurt is the same as "intake of a healthy person's fecal matter?"
Source, please.
It's not the same. It only contains one of the species of common intestinal bacteria that keep your gut happy. But sometimes just reestablishing a colony of that one is enough to help a lot with intestinal problems.
That's not the point here. The point is that Austin is apparently too far from Washington for the Texas AG to understand that he's bound by federal law, which supercedes State law.
Not sure how those questions would indicate, you didn't specify. I could see some thinking "recent" technology means "good", but my personal experience provides little evidence to correlate "new technology" with good. I could even make a case that it's a red flag. (I worked on a disastrous project where by fiat we had to develop with.NET. Horrible)
Code reviews? Meh. Some think they're doing code review, they're not... or they're horrible at it.
I always ask what their turnover is, and why the position being filled was vacated. YMMV.
Sure, they're going to TELL you that the last two guys who had the job hanged themselves in their cubicle.
What they seem to say they're doing forward error correction, but with giant coding blocks (superblocks) comprising multiple TCP packets. Presumably this is accomplished by swapping the bits around between the packets and then using a conventional block coding algorithm on smaller blocks within each packet. So a whole packet can be lost and the block-decoding algorithm will still decode the superblock correctly even with a missing packet (but not two missing packets).
It's a clever idea to work around the problem of RF interference in wireless networks (and I'm ashamed I didn't think of it first long ago.).
Conventional wireless network protocols use FEC in the link layer as well, but they lose packets due to collisions and interference from other devices that share spectrum with them. The only piece of it that I have trouble believing is that there can be a 10x or more increase in network throughput when the original packet drop rates were
I work in Sattelite Communications and we use these algorithims by default. We call it forward error correction. I would assume that they would use a much less aggressive algorithim, maby 1 correction bit per 8-16 bits rather than a 1 for 1 data, or a 1 for 2 data that you see for dirty links in the space operations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viterbi_algorithm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction.
The additional throughput is not from compression but from not having to TCP resend entire packets and probably also prevents the TCP window from resetting.
But they're claiming greater than 10x increases in network throughput when the packet loss rates were only 2% to 5%. That doesn't add up. If the packet loss rates were in the single digits, only 2% to 5% of packets should have to be retransmitted. The retransmit request requires another packet the other way, so that the throughput should be 90% to 96% of packets originally transmitted. In other words, a 2% to 5% packet loss rate shouldn't slow down a network so dramatically and if that's the case, it shouldn't be POSSIBLE to increase the maximum throughput by a large factor.
What a bold prediction, you understand of course that Intel has buried every single competing architecture from the past? Intel has a process advantage, even if they have to spend 10% of their die on decoding/rearranging they still have a significant transistor lead by remaining a process ahead AND still use lower power.
We'll see if that really will happen. But it's very true about the process advantage. If Intel chose to build and ARM CPU, it would blow the doors off all the other ARMs because they can build faster/smaller/lower-leakage transistors. But it might be more expensive, and the ARM market is very price sensitive. I imagine there are Intel people who have considered this carefully and concluded that they can't build an ARM processor that's cheaper AND better than the competitors.
With just an ADC you can produce any kind of modulation. You're limited in bandwidth by the sample rate, which I assume is adjustable. You're limited in out of band emissions by the precision and the converter design.
"The evidence was based on studies conducted between 2005-2009 by a group led by Lennart Hardell, a cancer specialist at the University Hospital in Orebro in Sweden. The court said the research was independent and “unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones.”
I suppose this marks a turning point in public opinion. Not as a time that correlation between cell phones and cancer was proven, but for the time people started distrusting researches concluding that "no link has been found". I can only think this is a good thing. We've been down this road before with cigarettes.
No link being found is the a priori expected result in most studies, because most possible causes and effects are unrelated. For instance, I would expect there to be no positive link found between use of Gillette shaving cream and diabetes because there is no obvious reason to think that choice of shaving cream brand should affect diabetes or vice-versa. However, when studying two things with an obvious physiological or chemical link, such as sugar ingestion and diabetes, one would expect a correlation to be more likely.
Chimps may have cancer at a lower rate because they die younger from non-cancer causes.
Also, your characterization of the data is not consistent with what the article's authors said,
"It should be noted that there is no pattern of human-specific selection in these genes. The high number of nonsynonymous mutations in these genes is approximately evenly distributed between the human and the chimpanzee lineage (results not shown)."
In other words, both human and chimpanzee lineages tended to have a preponderance of positive selection in genes related to tumor suppression, apoptosis and tumor progression.
One likely explanation for this is that both humans and chimpanzees are relatively long-lived species, so both species would be expected to have strong selection for genes that would affect long life. Cancer is one of those factors, so we would expect genes that affect it to be strongly selected. This hypothesis also explains the preponderance of testis-related genes with evidence for strong selection. Evolution of a longer reproductive lifespan means that effective spermatogenesis needs to be maintained over a longer period, which means modifications to the spermatogenesis-related genes, in particular the apoptosis-related subset of those genes, would be strongly selected. And no doubt we would also find that genes related to spermatogenesis and meiosis-related apoptosis would be strongly selected across ALL species, but (according to my hypothesis) most so in long-lived species.
No, they hoped it would prevent heart attacks. It didn't, but some of the people in their trial noticed they were impotent and had remarkably improved erections.
Rather slanted articles you posted. They're an interesting mixture of facts and propaganda, but I do think they're right in their assertion that the Catholic Church was far from being the cause of the Dark Ages. Their impedance of learning didn't start until centuries later. But they were also extremely intolerant of anything that flew in the face of Catholic theology. Usually this was some competing theology, such as that of the Muslims, the Cathars and later the Protestants, none of which are scientifically based.
Regarding the antibiotic situation, I think what is lacking is a strong enough incentive for new antibiotic research. Funding by the government, or a consortium of governments with a resulting government or public-domain ownership of the technology developed, would seem to be obviously in the public interest.
Or maybe the funding could come from the Catholic Church. If they fund the development of a new antibiotic that saves millions of lives, some of my money might find its way back to their coffers.
That's always a risk, even if he were using a Linux machine. But in the context of somebody who has decided to take the risk of having a Windows machine connected to the internet, I don't see any performance advantage to one mainstream anti-virus product over another. They're all open to zero-day exploits and they all update frequently as new exploits become known. If they're all going to expose you to about the same risk, you should be picking based on price and obtrusiveness. If you have a good argument for one of the other options over Windows Security Essentials, I'm sure a lot of readers here would love to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if I'm paying for the electricity. I don't really feel like paying 10% extra to charge my car for the convenience of not having to plug it in. How much more does this charging system cost and how much does it add to my car's weight? Qualitatively, let's estimate that as "too much."
They already did, with a fine of $600000. This went to the Supreme Court through appeals. The fact that it got that is more than distressing.
$600000 for EIGHT BOOKS.
I firmly believe that the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be "as is". Black and White. It means what it says and trying to conjure up a ruling because times change a little bit doesn't give any court the right or power to use a personal interpretation to make a ruling. Why do I believe this? Well they also gave the power to add, remove, amend the constitution through a very lengthy process. This tells me that changing the constitution in any way was very important and it was not meant to be arbitrarily changed at a whim or misinterpreted by someones prejudice. Think about it - technically any judge on any court can say , "well i interpret this to mean that so I am ruling X". That gives too much power to judges and I think most of us here understand that the founders didn't want this..
You can firmly believe that but you would be wrong. The intentionally made the words vague, ensuring that the courts and your legislators would have to interpret it according to their judgment.
I kind of agree with you that in principle it would be better to default to privacy - only this approach makes tracking completely impossible, because who is going to enable tracking? Answer - Noone - which mean none of the interested parties will want to conform to it. With the default set the other way the companies can keep tracking people and keep their profits whilst simultaneously claming the high ground. The people who want privacy can enable the setting and the ignorant/apathetic can continue with the status quo. If you want a voluntary system this is the only possible way it could work. The only alternative is to outlaw tracking, which is fine, but that still doesn't guarantee you won't be tracked.
A voluntary system can't work because there is more money to be made by ignoring the setting than there is by implementing DNT when requested.
No, not at all. The real shock is anyone thinking that Microsoft isn't the one to blame here.
They didn't follow the standard, again, and so they knew the switch in IE would be ignored.
What they're not telling you is that they'll also ignore the DNT setting on every other browser.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will probably uphold the lower court's judgment, not because they think the law is just, but because they will agree that the lower court was right about what the law IS. It's a stupid law and you might even see that expressed in the opinion, but they'll probably say that it's not their job to decide whether the law is stupid or unjust.
It IS manufactured for less than 10% of the price.
Eating yogurt is the same as "intake of a healthy person's fecal matter?"
Source, please.
It's not the same. It only contains one of the species of common intestinal bacteria that keep your gut happy. But sometimes just reestablishing a colony of that one is enough to help a lot with intestinal problems.
Abstract reasoning used to be the almost exclusive province of mathematicians and philosophers. Now we teach it in schools.
This is what happens when the law is based on attributed intent and the imputed wrongdoing rather than clear principles.
And judges and juries should refrain from going beyond those principles.
News flash Texas isn't governed by the UN.
It's governed by the Republican Party.
So is Austin.
That's not the point here. The point is that Austin is apparently too far from Washington for the Texas AG to understand that he's bound by federal law, which supercedes State law.
Where, exactly, is the originality?
Not sure how those questions would indicate, you didn't specify. I could see some thinking "recent" technology means "good", but my personal experience provides little evidence to correlate "new technology" with good. I could even make a case that it's a red flag. (I worked on a disastrous project where by fiat we had to develop with .NET. Horrible)
Code reviews? Meh. Some think they're doing code review, they're not... or they're horrible at it.
I always ask what their turnover is, and why the position being filled was vacated. YMMV.
Sure, they're going to TELL you that the last two guys who had the job hanged themselves in their cubicle.
What they seem to say they're doing forward error correction, but with giant coding blocks (superblocks) comprising multiple TCP packets. Presumably this is accomplished by swapping the bits around between the packets and then using a conventional block coding algorithm on smaller blocks within each packet. So a whole packet can be lost and the block-decoding algorithm will still decode the superblock correctly even with a missing packet (but not two missing packets).
It's a clever idea to work around the problem of RF interference in wireless networks (and I'm ashamed I didn't think of it first long ago.).
Conventional wireless network protocols use FEC in the link layer as well, but they lose packets due to collisions and interference from other devices that share spectrum with them. The only piece of it that I have trouble believing is that there can be a 10x or more increase in network throughput when the original packet drop rates were
I work in Sattelite Communications and we use these algorithims by default. We call it forward error correction. I would assume that they would use a much less aggressive algorithim, maby 1 correction bit per 8-16 bits rather than a 1 for 1 data, or a 1 for 2 data that you see for dirty links in the space operations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viterbi_algorithm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction. The additional throughput is not from compression but from not having to TCP resend entire packets and probably also prevents the TCP window from resetting.
But they're claiming greater than 10x increases in network throughput when the packet loss rates were only 2% to 5%. That doesn't add up. If the packet loss rates were in the single digits, only 2% to 5% of packets should have to be retransmitted. The retransmit request requires another packet the other way, so that the throughput should be 90% to 96% of packets originally transmitted. In other words, a 2% to 5% packet loss rate shouldn't slow down a network so dramatically and if that's the case, it shouldn't be POSSIBLE to increase the maximum throughput by a large factor.
WoW is playable with a middling graphics card, but it does take a fairly decent one to make it look pretty.
What a bold prediction, you understand of course that Intel has buried every single competing architecture from the past? Intel has a process advantage, even if they have to spend 10% of their die on decoding/rearranging they still have a significant transistor lead by remaining a process ahead AND still use lower power.
We'll see if that really will happen. But it's very true about the process advantage. If Intel chose to build and ARM CPU, it would blow the doors off all the other ARMs because they can build faster/smaller/lower-leakage transistors. But it might be more expensive, and the ARM market is very price sensitive. I imagine there are Intel people who have considered this carefully and concluded that they can't build an ARM processor that's cheaper AND better than the competitors.
With just an ADC you can produce any kind of modulation. You're limited in bandwidth by the sample rate, which I assume is adjustable. You're limited in out of band emissions by the precision and the converter design.
"The evidence was based on studies conducted between 2005-2009 by a group led by Lennart Hardell, a cancer specialist at the University Hospital in Orebro in Sweden. The court said the research was independent and “unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones.”
I suppose this marks a turning point in public opinion. Not as a time that correlation between cell phones and cancer was proven, but for the time people started distrusting researches concluding that "no link has been found". I can only think this is a good thing. We've been down this road before with cigarettes.
No link being found is the a priori expected result in most studies, because most possible causes and effects are unrelated. For instance, I would expect there to be no positive link found between use of Gillette shaving cream and diabetes because there is no obvious reason to think that choice of shaving cream brand should affect diabetes or vice-versa. However, when studying two things with an obvious physiological or chemical link, such as sugar ingestion and diabetes, one would expect a correlation to be more likely.
Chimps may have cancer at a lower rate because they die younger from non-cancer causes.
Also, your characterization of the data is not consistent with what the article's authors said,
"It should be noted that there is no pattern of human-specific selection in these genes. The high number of nonsynonymous mutations in these genes is approximately evenly distributed between the human and the chimpanzee lineage (results not shown)."
In other words, both human and chimpanzee lineages tended to have a preponderance of positive selection in genes related to tumor suppression, apoptosis and tumor progression.
One likely explanation for this is that both humans and chimpanzees are relatively long-lived species, so both species would be expected to have strong selection for genes that would affect long life. Cancer is one of those factors, so we would expect genes that affect it to be strongly selected. This hypothesis also explains the preponderance of testis-related genes with evidence for strong selection. Evolution of a longer reproductive lifespan means that effective spermatogenesis needs to be maintained over a longer period, which means modifications to the spermatogenesis-related genes, in particular the apoptosis-related subset of those genes, would be strongly selected. And no doubt we would also find that genes related to spermatogenesis and meiosis-related apoptosis would be strongly selected across ALL species, but (according to my hypothesis) most so in long-lived species.
No, they hoped it would prevent heart attacks. It didn't, but some of the people in their trial noticed they were impotent and had remarkably improved erections.
Rather slanted articles you posted. They're an interesting mixture of facts and propaganda, but I do think they're right in their assertion that the Catholic Church was far from being the cause of the Dark Ages. Their impedance of learning didn't start until centuries later. But they were also extremely intolerant of anything that flew in the face of Catholic theology. Usually this was some competing theology, such as that of the Muslims, the Cathars and later the Protestants, none of which are scientifically based.
Regarding the antibiotic situation, I think what is lacking is a strong enough incentive for new antibiotic research. Funding by the government, or a consortium of governments with a resulting government or public-domain ownership of the technology developed, would seem to be obviously in the public interest.
Or maybe the funding could come from the Catholic Church. If they fund the development of a new antibiotic that saves millions of lives, some of my money might find its way back to their coffers.
There's always a market for unscrupulous lawyers.
That's always a risk, even if he were using a Linux machine. But in the context of somebody who has decided to take the risk of having a Windows machine connected to the internet, I don't see any performance advantage to one mainstream anti-virus product over another. They're all open to zero-day exploits and they all update frequently as new exploits become known. If they're all going to expose you to about the same risk, you should be picking based on price and obtrusiveness. If you have a good argument for one of the other options over Windows Security Essentials, I'm sure a lot of readers here would love to hear it.