As a highly rated reply said, "practice". I'd like to add that it's also the only nominal way to land them. The alternative is to make a mess on the LZ, or chuck them someplace where they'd be pollution.
Quite a few modules that have come down from space with parachutes.
Those two boosters, which were used in previous launches of SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, will not be reused again, Musk said in a post-launch news conference last week.
Then why spend fuel and other resources on landing them?
I'm confused by your confusion: if it measures neutral on a highly calibrated microphone in a given environment then wouldn't it sound neutral to a listener in the same environment?
Not necessarily, and actually highly unlikely. The problem is that if the sound is shaped to sound better in one spot, it will sound worse in other spots, especially when it does trickery like bouncing sound off walls. Unless you plug one ear with wax, and put the other one in the exact same spot as a directional mic, you won't hear the same.
There are some other problems with the test procedures here, including not testing sound latency nor echo effects as noise. If you send continuous tones, you won't capture these kind of problems, which are quite common in speaker systems that aren't unidirectional. Playing back a rattle sound with varying speed easily exposes this problem, which direct line speaker systems are immune to.
Then there's the high-pass filter. You won't actually get deep bass, only psycho-acoustic approximations. But then again, today's generation grew up with music without any deep bass like tympani, or even mid-deep bass like bass guitar. To get bass that moves your diaphragm, you need speakers that displace air with their diaphragm.
PROVE it sends constant audio to Apple Servers (or to anyone outside your LAN), or STFU.
Why does it have to send "constant" to be a problem?
It certainly captures sound (or it wouldn't react to keywords), and it certainly has the capabilities to connect to the mothership (or it wouldn't be able to look anything up), and whether it combines the two now or not is enough of a potential problem that I won't allow it in my home or my office.
Technically, "getting influenza" should not count as a form of "preventing influenza".
Why not? It helps prevent future infections better than a vaccine does.
A downside is that if you have had a particular influenza strain and then get a vaccine for the same one, you likely will be sick for a couple of days, as the immune system response is triggered full on.
I didn't exercise, ate poorly, and smoked a pack a day for 20 years. I hardly ever got sick either.
There could quite possibly be a correlation there. If your habits made people shy away from you more than an average person, you would also be less likely to become infected. If everybody had halitosis, diseases would have a harder time spreading.
Same - I managed to catch the flu like 3 times around Sept-December:(
Highly unlikely. Quite a few people catch an URI/cold and call it the flu. But most of the time, it isn't influenza at all.
That said, a flu shot is not the most effective prevention for a single individual. Where isolation is not possible, getting and surviving various strains of influenza is far more effective at boosting the immune system, for a longer period of time.
The end result isn't less use of cookies but more annoying popups.
Competition. When you have the choice between two sites, where one of them have annoying popups because they use tracking and the other one doesn't because they don't, which one are you more likely to come back to?
The pop-ups are annoying. And thus tracking cookies will be selected against. It won't happen overnight, but slowly but surely, sites that don't have to display the warning/acceptance button will have an advantage in retaining visitors. No matter how small an advantage, over time it will change the playing field.
You're supposed to get annoyed. That's the intent. When enough users get annoyed, the idea is that sites will switch to not using cookies to track you. Note that cookies needed to preserve website session information (like login) are exempt from the warning - it's the tracking cookies that require a warning. And the site owner can disable the tracking, and thus not piss off the users. Some sites have, which means the law has a positive effect.
When people order-in, they tend to not order over-priced soft drinks with their food, when they dine-in, they do.
When I order delivery, I usually order a bottle or two of soda too. If I could have ordered a couple of beers instead, I would have, but that's illegal where I live.
I think that most of a restaurant's profit comes from serving drinks. Home delivery really cuts into this high profit item.
And why shouldn't restaurants be allowed to deliver drinks? It's not like two drinks delivered is going to cause alcohol problems - those who drink enough booze to have a problem aren't going to buy high priced single drinks to go with their meals anyhow.
Face recognition doesn't care about hair style. It doesn't with like a human, it measures face geometry like the distance between the eyes.
Yes, and no. While eye distance is a factor, it's not the only factor. Some of the facial geometry can and sometimes is obscured by hair style, whether it's hair obscuring the slope of the forehead, a lock obscuring the brow ridge, a moustache obscuring the mouth, or a full beard obscuring the entire jaw. For some, the eyes and nose is almost all data you have, while for others there are far more data points.
The problem is not the nature of color and light. The problem is the sample data used to train this Ãoeartificial intelligenceÃ. If the trainer doesnÃ(TM)t think to include non-white people, the technology will suck at differentiating non-white people.
That you yourself ague that it is inherently more difficult to distinguish non-white people compounds both the error and bias. Not against non-white people per-she, but simply in reflection of the view that white peoples matter most.
Sigh. You start off so well in the first paragraph, and then you jump to unfounded conclusions. Feeding the facial recognition routines data that reflect the overall demographics is the unbiased approach. Feeding it 50% pictures of dark skinned people in a region with 20% dark skinned people would be biased, and precisely what you argue against. Yes, it will likely have problems with albinos, people with argyria or rickets, those who use the same dermatologist as Trump, full beard aficionados, and many others, due to less data. That's not a bias, but a lack of bias. The unbiased solution is not to increase the proportion of data for these groups, but to increase the overall amount of data so more data arrives also for these groups.
That's beside the point in this context, because with most facial recognition cameras, you don't control the light. Most of the time, it's going to be daylight, and sometimes street lights or store lights.
That darker objects reflect fewer photons is always going to be the case. That's not racial bias.
Fitness trackers with optical heart readers have a similar problem, where the light does not penetrate as well for darker skin. Some auto-adjust, with the unfortunate side effect of shorter battery life for dark skinned people. And some blast at too high intensity for everyone, and cause burn marks over time for the fairest skinned people, and make their heart beat harder to read.
There's no real solution that fits everyone. People are different, and "one size fits most" is not going to be the optimum solution for either facial recognition, iris scanners, optical pulse monitors, or anything else. Accepting that someone from Iceland is likely going to absorb less photons than someone from South Sudan, and thus optical based equipment will work differently isn't racial injustice.
Any word processor should be able to do it quickly. Just replace each space character with a comma followed by a space.
Word processors are not suitable for that, as they rewrite and reformat text to fit your chosen style, grammar and layout. You want a text editor; never confuse the two.
Some people have a very strong desire for having children, to the point that this urge rules their lives. I think a better solution is to offer psychiatric medicine to help people overcome this compulsion. If you have genes that make you susceptible to either dying or becoming sterile before mating age, those genes do not need to be rewarded. It's not like anyone dies if you don't have children, but a future grandchild may very well die because you chose to have children despite known problems.
In case anyone wonders what LCS stands for, it's "Littoral Combat Ship". Not that everyone knows what that means either, but it boils down to a jack-of-all-trades ship that's intended for close-to-shore operations, and not the deep seas.
And yeah, they're the F-135s of the ocean. Overpriced, delayed, problems doing some expected things, and loved by those who love Swiss army knives, entertainment systems and all-you-can-eat buffets.
When was the last time you got in a cab and the driver checked his entire route with the dispatcher to make sure there were no accidents?
When was the last time you were in a real black cab? They get messages like "Lorry accident on Hampstead north of Drummond, south blocked, north slow".
GPS+phone systems are much slower to react, because they rely on the few cars that send bidirectional data, or officials to phone in when they close a road, which can take hours.
And GPS itself doesn't work well in big cities anyhow, due to tall buildings obstructing satellites.
I'd take a knowledgable driver at twice the price any day.
How do you know? Ever had a conversation with one?
I haven't had a conversation with a god either, nor with a green skinned triple-breasted lady from Andromeda. The null hypothesis is that neither exist.
Most people who attempt and fail at suicide never try again
And how much of that is due to the amount of guilt others pour onto them?
If someone is considering suicide because they're a teenager and their girlfriend broke up with them, it's appropriate to direct them to counseling.
Why? That seems like you're making an emotional response. Shouldn't a 19 year old be allowed to choose over his or her own life? They're allowed to enlist in the military, so why not take their life and not just risk it? Is it not their own life? I find this attitude very condescending and disrespectful.
Remember, no one who has committed suicide has ever regretted it.
Slashdot Mirror
As a highly rated reply said, "practice". I'd like to add that it's also the only nominal way to land them. The alternative is to make a mess on the LZ, or chuck them someplace where they'd be pollution.
Quite a few modules that have come down from space with parachutes.
Those two boosters, which were used in previous launches of SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, will not be reused again, Musk said in a post-launch news conference last week.
Then why spend fuel and other resources on landing them?
It's not even Hi-Fi by the old DIN 45500 standard of the early 70s.
And certainly not by newer standards which require 20-20,000 Hz @+- 3dB, max 10% THD @ 96 dB @1m.
I'm confused by your confusion: if it measures neutral on a highly calibrated microphone in a given environment then wouldn't it sound neutral to a listener in the same environment?
Not necessarily, and actually highly unlikely. The problem is that if the sound is shaped to sound better in one spot, it will sound worse in other spots, especially when it does trickery like bouncing sound off walls. Unless you plug one ear with wax, and put the other one in the exact same spot as a directional mic, you won't hear the same.
There are some other problems with the test procedures here, including not testing sound latency nor echo effects as noise. If you send continuous tones, you won't capture these kind of problems, which are quite common in speaker systems that aren't unidirectional.
Playing back a rattle sound with varying speed easily exposes this problem, which direct line speaker systems are immune to.
Then there's the high-pass filter. You won't actually get deep bass, only psycho-acoustic approximations. But then again, today's generation grew up with music without any deep bass like tympani, or even mid-deep bass like bass guitar.
To get bass that moves your diaphragm, you need speakers that displace air with their diaphragm.
You can disable Siri on HomePod.
Physically, or through a "trust me" software option?
PROVE it sends constant audio to Apple Servers (or to anyone outside your LAN), or STFU.
Why does it have to send "constant" to be a problem?
It certainly captures sound (or it wouldn't react to keywords), and it certainly has the capabilities to connect to the mothership (or it wouldn't be able to look anything up), and whether it combines the two now or not is enough of a potential problem that I won't allow it in my home or my office.
Technically, "getting influenza" should not count as a form of "preventing influenza".
Why not? It helps prevent future infections better than a vaccine does.
A downside is that if you have had a particular influenza strain and then get a vaccine for the same one, you likely will be sick for a couple of days, as the immune system response is triggered full on.
I didn't exercise, ate poorly, and smoked a pack a day for 20 years. I hardly ever got sick either.
There could quite possibly be a correlation there. If your habits made people shy away from you more than an average person, you would also be less likely to become infected.
If everybody had halitosis, diseases would have a harder time spreading.
Same - I managed to catch the flu like 3 times around Sept-December :(
Highly unlikely. Quite a few people catch an URI/cold and call it the flu. But most of the time, it isn't influenza at all.
That said, a flu shot is not the most effective prevention for a single individual. Where isolation is not possible, getting and surviving various strains of influenza is far more effective at boosting the immune system, for a longer period of time.
The end result isn't less use of cookies but more annoying popups.
Competition. When you have the choice between two sites, where one of them have annoying popups because they use tracking and the other one doesn't because they don't, which one are you more likely to come back to?
The pop-ups are annoying. And thus tracking cookies will be selected against. It won't happen overnight, but slowly but surely, sites that don't have to display the warning/acceptance button will have an advantage in retaining visitors. No matter how small an advantage, over time it will change the playing field.
You're supposed to get annoyed. That's the intent. When enough users get annoyed, the idea is that sites will switch to not using cookies to track you.
Note that cookies needed to preserve website session information (like login) are exempt from the warning - it's the tracking cookies that require a warning. And the site owner can disable the tracking, and thus not piss off the users. Some sites have, which means the law has a positive effect.
But most people don't bother ordering drinks for home delivery if they already have some at home.
Surely the same goes for food?
When people order-in, they tend to not order over-priced soft drinks with their food, when they dine-in, they do.
When I order delivery, I usually order a bottle or two of soda too.
If I could have ordered a couple of beers instead, I would have, but that's illegal where I live.
I think that most of a restaurant's profit comes from serving drinks. Home delivery really cuts into this high profit item.
And why shouldn't restaurants be allowed to deliver drinks?
It's not like two drinks delivered is going to cause alcohol problems - those who drink enough booze to have a problem aren't going to buy high priced single drinks to go with their meals anyhow.
Face recognition doesn't care about hair style. It doesn't with like a human, it measures face geometry like the distance between the eyes.
Yes, and no. While eye distance is a factor, it's not the only factor.
Some of the facial geometry can and sometimes is obscured by hair style, whether it's hair obscuring the slope of the forehead, a lock obscuring the brow ridge, a moustache obscuring the mouth, or a full beard obscuring the entire jaw. For some, the eyes and nose is almost all data you have, while for others there are far more data points.
The problem is not the nature of color and light. The problem is the sample data used to train this Ãoeartificial intelligenceÃ. If the trainer doesnÃ(TM)t think to include non-white people, the technology will suck at differentiating non-white people.
That you yourself ague that it is inherently more difficult to distinguish non-white people compounds both the error and bias. Not against non-white people per-she, but simply in reflection of the view that white peoples matter most.
Sigh. You start off so well in the first paragraph, and then you jump to unfounded conclusions. Feeding the facial recognition routines data that reflect the overall demographics is the unbiased approach. Feeding it 50% pictures of dark skinned people in a region with 20% dark skinned people would be biased, and precisely what you argue against.
Yes, it will likely have problems with albinos, people with argyria or rickets, those who use the same dermatologist as Trump, full beard aficionados, and many others, due to less data. That's not a bias, but a lack of bias. The unbiased solution is not to increase the proportion of data for these groups, but to increase the overall amount of data so more data arrives also for these groups.
That's beside the point in this context, because with most facial recognition cameras, you don't control the light. Most of the time, it's going to be daylight, and sometimes street lights or store lights.
That darker objects reflect fewer photons is always going to be the case. That's not racial bias.
Fitness trackers with optical heart readers have a similar problem, where the light does not penetrate as well for darker skin. Some auto-adjust, with the unfortunate side effect of shorter battery life for dark skinned people. And some blast at too high intensity for everyone, and cause burn marks over time for the fairest skinned people, and make their heart beat harder to read.
There's no real solution that fits everyone. People are different, and "one size fits most" is not going to be the optimum solution for either facial recognition, iris scanners, optical pulse monitors, or anything else. Accepting that someone from Iceland is likely going to absorb less photons than someone from South Sudan, and thus optical based equipment will work differently isn't racial injustice.
Trump's a white guy isn't he?
Orange is the new white?
Any word processor should be able to do it quickly. Just replace each space character with a comma followed by a space.
Word processors are not suitable for that, as they rewrite and reformat text to fit your chosen style, grammar and layout.
You want a text editor; never confuse the two.
Some people have a very strong desire for having children, to the point that this urge rules their lives. I think a better solution is to offer psychiatric medicine to help people overcome this compulsion.
If you have genes that make you susceptible to either dying or becoming sterile before mating age, those genes do not need to be rewarded. It's not like anyone dies if you don't have children, but a future grandchild may very well die because you chose to have children despite known problems.
The biggest navy ships (aside from aircraft carriers which are a special case) are the destroyers, which cost something like $2 billion per ship.
No, cruisers are generally bigger than destroyers, and so are battleships (not that there are any battleships left in active duty).
In case anyone wonders what LCS stands for, it's "Littoral Combat Ship". Not that everyone knows what that means either, but it boils down to a jack-of-all-trades ship that's intended for close-to-shore operations, and not the deep seas.
And yeah, they're the F-135s of the ocean. Overpriced, delayed, problems doing some expected things, and loved by those who love Swiss army knives, entertainment systems and all-you-can-eat buffets.
When was the last time you got in a cab and the driver checked his entire route with the dispatcher to make sure there were no accidents?
When was the last time you were in a real black cab?
They get messages like "Lorry accident on Hampstead north of Drummond, south blocked, north slow".
GPS+phone systems are much slower to react, because they rely on the few cars that send bidirectional data, or officials to phone in when they close a road, which can take hours.
And GPS itself doesn't work well in big cities anyhow, due to tall buildings obstructing satellites.
I'd take a knowledgable driver at twice the price any day.
How do you know? Ever had a conversation with one?
I haven't had a conversation with a god either, nor with a green skinned triple-breasted lady from Andromeda. The null hypothesis is that neither exist.
Most people who attempt and fail at suicide never try again
And how much of that is due to the amount of guilt others pour onto them?
If someone is considering suicide because they're a teenager and their girlfriend broke up with them, it's appropriate to direct them to counseling.
Why? That seems like you're making an emotional response. Shouldn't a 19 year old be allowed to choose over his or her own life? They're allowed to enlist in the military, so why not take their life and not just risk it? Is it not their own life?
I find this attitude very condescending and disrespectful.
Remember, no one who has committed suicide has ever regretted it.