The EKG feature, in particular, should only really be used if you feel something abnormal going on, and then you should only share the resulting report with your doctor, not act on it directly.
In the case that you feel something abnormal is going on, you should see a doctor anyhow. Especially with all the disclaimers that you can't trust the results one way or the other. So what's the purpose of using this feature at all, then?
There's nothing magical about 24fps. It was just the point that ancient tech finally got to a "good enough" frame rate as compared to slower or more judder prone rates.
I believe the reason for 24 fps was because that 12 fps was already established, and you could easily modify the equipment to use the same film at the same reel speed with a half as tall a frame and twice as many stops.
Why not have every employee in the database and flag people who don't belong?
Because unless they add security resources to check on and act on the recognition, it will inevitably mean reallocating resources. Then wearing a mask or make-up of an employee improves your odds, as resources that would have checked you before will be allocated elsewhere.
And if you want to add security resources, you can do that anyhow; no need for facial recognition.
Facial recognition can help with filtering out persons that are expected so that security can give more focus to visitors and the software can check those against known threats and if it fails you will be no worse off than if you didn't have the software.
Yes, you will be. If the facial recognition software fails and identifies someone wearing a Kellyanne Conway mask as Kellyanne Conway and security gives more focus to others because she was expected, you're worse off than if everybody was scrutinized the same and no prioritization made based on facial recognition.
The zero shortening is a side effect of IP addresses not necessarily being dotted quads, but can also be triplets, doubles or single numbers, in which case the last number is 16, 24 or 32 bits. That means that 127.1 always is identical to 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.1 is always identical to 192.168.0.1 See my other post for more details.
I take it you're not a sysadmin, then:p Especially 0 for 0.0.0.0 and 127.1 for 127.0.0.1 are common.
and for your 2nd example "192.168.0.1 can also be written 192.168.1"
How do you distinguish between 192.0.168.1 and 192.168.0.1?
Because the zero shortening is just a side effect of the actual rules: An IP address with four elements is treated as four 8 bit values An IP address with three elements is treated as two 8 bit values followed by a 16-bit value. An IP address with two elements is treated as an 8 bit value followed by a 24-bit value. An IP address with one element is treated as a 32-bit value.
From this follows that when used to just drop zeroes, it will drop zeroes either for the two middle elements or only the third element.
The most famous of Google's DNS servers can thus be referenced as: 8.8.8.8 8.8.2056 8.526344 134744072
Many if not most genes code for more than one effect. The same gene that can influence the height of an individual might also increase the risk of connective tissue disorders
That's a whole lot of guess work just to worry about something that amounts to nothing. I am talking long-term, as any discussion relating to eventual fitness of species should be. Do you seriously think over the next few hundred years they will not be able to discern how to edit for height without making people have slightly more oily skin or whatever?
"Or whatever" is the worry. Connective tissue disorders include things like aortic dissection, asthma and detached retina, and do indeed involve many of the same genetic variation that code for increased height.
And long term, we do not know even a fraction of the full effect any given gene has, and even less so what the long term effects are. What's prudent is to try to find out as much as possible before making the genetic modifications, precisely for long term reasons.
The IPv6 numerical format is designed to clearly handle supporting a 128 bit address. It also provides some features to allowing for the abbreviation of an address, when there is a series of zeros.
IPv4 also has that. 127.0.0.1 can also be written 127.1 192.168.0.1 can also be written 192.168.1
I don't know why we're speculating on this shit; it's not like their has been a study on a CRISPR crop of humans yet.
Because there's no way to put the genie back into the bottle. If we can't stop it, we can at least learn and mitigate potential problems as much as possible.
What "bad choices" are you imagining it would be possible for parents to make to weaken the gene pool, that would be worse than allowing unchecked mental defects and physical abnormality as we do today?
Many if not most genes code for more than one effect. The same gene that can influence the height of an individual might also increase the risk of connective tissue disorders (or 2nd generation offspring getting connective tissue disorders) and a gene that reduces the risk of Alzheimer's might might also increase the risk of schizophrenia. We haven't charted even a fraction of the effects that individual genetic changes cause.
There's also non-troubling things, like removing genetic disorders.
Except that that is troubling. Many genetic inheritable diseases are recessive, and being a heterozygote carrier gives benefits, while the disease from inheriting the gene from both parents is highly detrimental. If eradicating the disease, you also eradicate the heterozygote benefits.
What is wrong with parents being able to decide physical attributes of children?
The lack of predation that would terminate the bad choices. Parents can make bad choices and then rely on society to provide a lifeline so the offspring can grow up and propagate. The gene pool gets worse, and the costs are largely borne by everybody else.
I know we have all this ethics crap, but if we eliminate something like Cystic Fibrosis, I don't see a downside here.
Many of the inheritable diseases we see are there because the genes don't just control one thing, but several. Often, a genetic variation does not only cause a negative, but is accompanied by something beneficial. Evolution has had a long time to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. If it were only disadvantages, they would generally have been eradicated from the gene pool. The most famous example is sickle cell anemia, which protects against malaria for those who only have the gene from one parent. And some HLA antigens give strong resistance to influenza A, at the cost of an increased risk of rheumatic diseases. What would you pick?
In the case of Cystic Fibrosis, it's an an autosomal recessive disease, meaning that 25% of children of two healthy carriers get CF. That it is present in the gene pool indicates that there may be an heterozygote advantage to being a carrier with the mutation on only one gene. Eradicating the genetic variation that causes CF would eradicate that benefit too, whatever it may be. As for the benefit to individual couples, CRISPR doesn't add any benefit that isn't already there today. Prospective parents who both are carriers can test the embryo and terminate pregnancies where both genes are added.
It may not be in the best interest. Evolution has had a long time to make us stronger, faster and smarter, but any improvement in one area come with costs, like much higher energy usage or longer recovery times. Our brain size has gone down over the last few thousand years, for example, and so has muscle strength. More is not always optimal.
Something cannot come from nothing. It has to come from something else.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
First of all, something comes from nothing all the time. Quantum fluctuaton creates pairs of something from nothing. Most of these disappear extremely quickly, but due to location being a probability, not a fact, a few must by necessity survive. Our whole universe may be no more than the result of a single vacuum fluctuation, see inflationary theory.
Secondly, "come from" implies time. The concept of time itself breaks down near singularities, making the rule of "something must come from nothing" meaningless in that context. "What was before big bang?" requires a definition of "before" that doesn't imply time ticking or having an arrow.
The accuracy would only be valid for its own time frame, though. As soon as you need to send the time anywhere else, and you have to, even if it's just to a circuit to read the time from, the accuracy depends on stability of the environment. Any kind of change in acceleration, including but not limited to gravity, will cause a cumulative difference over, well, time, for lack of a better word. Someone storing large amounts of metal in a nearby building, or Boring a tunnel underneath might be enough to cause drift that must be compensated for. To say nothing of factors like tidal forces, and even how the earth's own orbital speed decay over the aeons cause time variations.
Slashdot Mirror
The EKG feature, in particular, should only really be used if you feel something abnormal going on, and then you should only share the resulting report with your doctor, not act on it directly.
In the case that you feel something abnormal is going on, you should see a doctor anyhow. Especially with all the disclaimers that you can't trust the results one way or the other. So what's the purpose of using this feature at all, then?
There's nothing magical about 24fps. It was just the point that ancient tech finally got to a "good enough" frame rate as compared to slower or more judder prone rates.
I believe the reason for 24 fps was because that 12 fps was already established, and you could easily modify the equipment to use the same film at the same reel speed with a half as tall a frame and twice as many stops.
Why not have every employee in the database and flag people who don't belong?
Because unless they add security resources to check on and act on the recognition, it will inevitably mean reallocating resources.
Then wearing a mask or make-up of an employee improves your odds, as resources that would have checked you before will be allocated elsewhere.
And if you want to add security resources, you can do that anyhow; no need for facial recognition.
The White House, regardless of who currently resides there, is a sacred area of the USofA.
Sacred? Keep your religion private and away from my government!
Facial recognition can help with filtering out persons that are expected so that security can give more focus to visitors and the software can check those against known threats and if it fails you will be no worse off than if you didn't have the software.
Yes, you will be. If the facial recognition software fails and identifies someone wearing a Kellyanne Conway mask as Kellyanne Conway and security gives more focus to others because she was expected, you're worse off than if everybody was scrutinized the same and no prioritization made based on facial recognition.
Trump masks are available for cheap, just saying...
Intel has provided microcode updates for most CPU lines.
For odd definitions of "most". Out of the 221 processors Intel have microcode updates for, 49 have updates from 2018. The rest do not.
The zero shortening is a side effect of IP addresses not necessarily being dotted quads, but can also be triplets, doubles or single numbers, in which case the last number is 16, 24 or 32 bits.
That means that 127.1 always is identical to 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.1 is always identical to 192.168.0.1
See my other post for more details.
uhh, I have never heard of that
I take it you're not a sysadmin, then :p
Especially 0 for 0.0.0.0 and 127.1 for 127.0.0.1 are common.
and for your 2nd example "192.168.0.1 can also be written 192.168.1"
How do you distinguish between 192.0.168.1 and 192.168.0.1?
Because the zero shortening is just a side effect of the actual rules:
An IP address with four elements is treated as four 8 bit values
An IP address with three elements is treated as two 8 bit values followed by a 16-bit value.
An IP address with two elements is treated as an 8 bit value followed by a 24-bit value.
An IP address with one element is treated as a 32-bit value.
From this follows that when used to just drop zeroes, it will drop zeroes either for the two middle elements or only the third element.
The most famous of Google's DNS servers can thus be referenced as:
8.8.8.8
8.8.2056
8.526344
134744072
That's a whole lot of guess work just to worry about something that amounts to nothing. I am talking long-term, as any discussion relating to eventual fitness of species should be. Do you seriously think over the next few hundred years they will not be able to discern how to edit for height without making people have slightly more oily skin or whatever?
"Or whatever" is the worry. Connective tissue disorders include things like aortic dissection, asthma and detached retina, and do indeed involve many of the same genetic variation that code for increased height.
And long term, we do not know even a fraction of the full effect any given gene has, and even less so what the long term effects are. What's prudent is to try to find out as much as possible before making the genetic modifications, precisely for long term reasons.
The IPv6 numerical format is designed to clearly handle supporting a 128 bit address. It also provides some features to allowing for the abbreviation of an address, when there is a series of zeros.
IPv4 also has that.
127.0.0.1 can also be written 127.1
192.168.0.1 can also be written 192.168.1
The fact that the mac address is part of the number
That's not a given. It may or may not be. For many auto-assigned IPv6 schemes, it is, but that's not the only way IPv6 addresses are assigned.
I don't know why we're speculating on this shit; it's not like their has been a study on a CRISPR crop of humans yet.
Because there's no way to put the genie back into the bottle.
If we can't stop it, we can at least learn and mitigate potential problems as much as possible.
Not performing genetic alteration by necessity means fewer mutations than deliberately using CRISPR to cause a mutation. N N+1
What "bad choices" are you imagining it would be possible for parents to make to weaken the gene pool, that would be worse than allowing unchecked mental defects and physical abnormality as we do today?
Many if not most genes code for more than one effect. The same gene that can influence the height of an individual might also increase the risk of connective tissue disorders (or 2nd generation offspring getting connective tissue disorders) and a gene that reduces the risk of Alzheimer's might might also increase the risk of schizophrenia. We haven't charted even a fraction of the effects that individual genetic changes cause.
There's also non-troubling things, like removing genetic disorders.
Except that that is troubling. Many genetic inheritable diseases are recessive, and being a heterozygote carrier gives benefits, while the disease from inheriting the gene from both parents is highly detrimental. If eradicating the disease, you also eradicate the heterozygote benefits.
What is wrong with parents being able to decide physical attributes of children?
The lack of predation that would terminate the bad choices. Parents can make bad choices and then rely on society to provide a lifeline so the offspring can grow up and propagate. The gene pool gets worse, and the costs are largely borne by everybody else.
I know we have all this ethics crap, but if we eliminate something like Cystic Fibrosis, I don't see a downside here.
Many of the inheritable diseases we see are there because the genes don't just control one thing, but several. Often, a genetic variation does not only cause a negative, but is accompanied by something beneficial. Evolution has had a long time to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. If it were only disadvantages, they would generally have been eradicated from the gene pool.
The most famous example is sickle cell anemia, which protects against malaria for those who only have the gene from one parent.
And some HLA antigens give strong resistance to influenza A, at the cost of an increased risk of rheumatic diseases. What would you pick?
In the case of Cystic Fibrosis, it's an an autosomal recessive disease, meaning that 25% of children of two healthy carriers get CF. That it is present in the gene pool indicates that there may be an heterozygote advantage to being a carrier with the mutation on only one gene. Eradicating the genetic variation that causes CF would eradicate that benefit too, whatever it may be.
As for the benefit to individual couples, CRISPR doesn't add any benefit that isn't already there today. Prospective parents who both are carriers can test the embryo and terminate pregnancies where both genes are added.
It may not be in the best interest. Evolution has had a long time to make us stronger, faster and smarter, but any improvement in one area come with costs, like much higher energy usage or longer recovery times.
Our brain size has gone down over the last few thousand years, for example, and so has muscle strength. More is not always optimal.
To me, this is also the best approach, to make sense of "chaotic" behavior. (As in: chaos theory)
Killing off the butterflies might reduce the number of hurricanes!
Quantum fluctuatons is "something".
Yes, but it's a something that comes from nothing (by definition).
Something cannot come from nothing. It has to come from something else.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
First of all, something comes from nothing all the time. Quantum fluctuaton creates pairs of something from nothing. Most of these disappear extremely quickly, but due to location being a probability, not a fact, a few must by necessity survive. Our whole universe may be no more than the result of a single vacuum fluctuation, see inflationary theory.
Secondly, "come from" implies time. The concept of time itself breaks down near singularities, making the rule of "something must come from nothing" meaningless in that context. "What was before big bang?" requires a definition of "before" that doesn't imply time ticking or having an arrow.
when did nasa launch a car into space just because it could?
There are several cars on the moon, launched by NASA.
The accuracy would only be valid for its own time frame, though. As soon as you need to send the time anywhere else, and you have to, even if it's just to a circuit to read the time from, the accuracy depends on stability of the environment. Any kind of change in acceleration, including but not limited to gravity, will cause a cumulative difference over, well, time, for lack of a better word.
Someone storing large amounts of metal in a nearby building, or Boring a tunnel underneath might be enough to cause drift that must be compensated for. To say nothing of factors like tidal forces, and even how the earth's own orbital speed decay over the aeons cause time variations.
But it's darn accurate for its own time frame.
SpaceX can do what NASA can't.
SpaceX can do what NASA used to be able to do, for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost NASA.
I must have missed the news, but when did SpaceX put a man on the moon, landed probes on other planets, or did any deep space exploration missions?