They still can't mark them "wild caught" unless they are. I wonder- do they still get labeled as "Atlantic Salmon"?
Fast fact: In the US, Atlantic salmon is considered endangered so cannot be legally be "wild caught" and sold in the US, so nearly 100% of Atlantic Salmon sold in supermarkets in the US is farmed.
This particular GM is to help AquAdvantage increase production of Farmed Atlantic Salmon, and this ruling will basically mean that it will be labeled simply as Farmed Atlantic Salmon with country of origin listed as Canada or Panama.
And there's also the sea-based Trident SLBM, which is arguably the bigger deterrent. Everyone knows where the Minuteman-III missiles are. Only people aboard the submarines, and the upper brass in the Navy know where the Ohio-class SSBNs are.
FWIW, advances in submarine detection technology have gotten to the point that many feel that submarines will eventually become the "battle-ship" under the sea (e.g., obsolete). Although today, stationary passive sonar nets only listen for submarines near coasts and "chokepoints" that subs traverse, improved information and processing power will eventually allow passive sonar in the open ocean and even optical illumination detection using drones equipped with high-powered laser-leds. When that become practical, it is pretty much game over for subs and it they will go the way of the battleship (probably to be replaced with swarms of harder to detect underwater drone ships like fighter planes are being replaced today with flying drones).
FWIW, they've been doing laser-doppler cooling for a while (all the articles you hear about cooling atoms down near absolute zero generally used laser-doppler cooling). This anti-stokes technique is very similar to the laser-dopper cooling technique in that both involve on average the emission of photons at higher mean energy than those absorbed.
In the case of laser doppler cooling, you illuminate a batch of atoms with a laser from multiple directions at a slightly lower frequency than a transitional energy state. Atoms that are thermally in motion, but are instantaneously moving towards one of the lasers will absorb more photons (because doppler blue-shift makes the atom see the slightly higher frequency matching its transition energy state from the laser if it is moving towards from laser) causing the atom to lose net momentum in that direction and become slightly cooler (mostly because the photon will be re-emitted in a random direction).
In the case of the anti-stokes technique, you need to construct a system that has florescence (emits light a certain frequency when excited) with a bandgap, you then need to pump the energy into the system at the lower frequency. The trick (which is what makes this hard), is that the system needs to be tuned so that the energy you pump in is more efficiently converted into florescence energy than general thermal heating and the photons that are released by florescence can efficiently leave the system to avoid secondary heating.
Anti-stokes is interesting because it has the potential to be able to cool things microscopically (rather than at the atomic scale only).
AFAIKT, this team pulled out quite a few stops to setup this system. Apparently, they setup a laser trap to localize the florescent crystal (doped-YLF) and the "liquid" was D2O (deuterium or heavy water) to get the right thermal gradients for the laser trap for their experiment.
If you are interested, you can read about it here.
Your initial thoughts are wrong. This is a type of encryption algorithm known as homomorphic encryption, which allows one to do operate on encrypted data without decrypting it. This has no bearing on the strength of the encryption against an adversary.
Practical homomorphic encryption (like this MSFT product) is based on simplified encryption (to make it more practical, duh). AFAIKT in this case the MSFT product is based on a derivative YASHE (yet another somewhat homomorphic encryption) scheme. This is a bit more like steganography than pure encryption as it "hides" the encryption in a ring and requires lattice theory to generate a unique decryption (meaning you can only perform a few addition/multiplication operations before you have to re-decrypt, re-encrypt). Although theoretically, you can make this encryption "strong" by selecting different parameters (and introducing more overhead and lower error bounds), at some point there is a fundamental limit related to the entropy of the data set itself (which for medical-like data is pretty low entropy).
And then there is the (in)famous sum-product puzzle, which although is kind of an interesting puzzle in that in illustrates how seemingly impossible obfuscation can be removed by the most innocuous oracle queries.
What will break this type of encryption is not brute force, but say on medical data examining distributional anomalies to make a dictionary of sorts. Also since this appears to be some sort of "ECB-like" encryption (most data is encrypted the same way so you can operate on it), we all know how weak that can be in some situations...
This is why in most medical research, data must be de-identified, not merely encrypted. Not that fixes things by a long shot, but it's better than simply encrypting and hoping...
As for annual physicals, I'm pretty sure that's only a thing in countries with privatised healthcare. I don't think the NHS has ever proposed such at thing.
I guess they aren't annual in the UK, but every 5 yearsor so...
Indeed, the effort to blacklist homeopathy is entirely thanks to Marsh and the rest of the Good Thinking Society. Please consider donating to them so they can continue their fight against wasteful and dangerous pseudoscience. Homeopathic owl isn't cheap you know.
Even lacking the actual presence of the landlord, it seems that if the "floor manager" either got discounted rent or was paid a salary for their work as the "social coordinator" (I hate that name BTW) then they could classify as a proxy for the landlord and therefore be classed as the "resident". Of course, the catch here is that at that point, evicting the SC would be very troublesome if they got out of hand, so vetting that person would be difficult and potentially risky to the endeavour.
I suspect in practice, the "SC" would be hired in a capacity similar to that of a live-in apartment or motel manager by the owner (or property management company) and likely could be fired at will (and probably evicted at the end of the month at worst depending on the employment contract they signed). I don't see the "SC" as much different than any other live-in employee on a residency contract in a motel or apartment complex, except that they wouldn't get paid as much for their time...
A bigger problem might be the wage problem. The SC has to put in 'x' hours and is only compensated 'y' amount, does that meet minimum wage requirements and does a rental subsidy count as enough wages to get the property management company out hot water including OT, on-call time, and of course the 24-hour partying that might occur in one of these setups. $10hour * 24hours * 30 days = $7200/month (that's alot of free rent even in silicon valley)...
It will take a fancy lawyer to figure this stuff out...
If you count discovering the fact that "invisible" bacteria and viruses can cause diseases and figuring out that vaccines and antibiotics can destroy these invisible menaces medicine, I agree, but I tend to call that stuff science. Medicine (like engineering) to me is more about protocols and practice, than science which is about theory and discovery, but feel free to harbor different definitions...
For most of our history on this planet, 30 was "about ready to die." So, yes, you are old. Every day you live from now forward is a gift of modern science.
Common misconception Mr(s) troll. Historically, if you made it past childhood (high infant mortality rate, childhood illnesses), the average age at death was closer to 50 in prehistoric times (vs 80 today). Of course the *average* age is greatly depressed by childhood deaths which have gone down greatly thanks to modern science...
No, these were called "boarding houses". They were zoned out of existence in most places because they attracted a transient, low income population that was thought to be undesirable.
In today's "gig economy" we have all become transient low income workers, so the stigma has been removed. Of course they need a trendy new name like "co-living", this is the 21st century.
In china, they just call them factory dorms (generally owned by the factory to house transient workers that come in from the countryside)... I think google and facebook (Anton Menlo) were thinking about building a few of these...
Recently, these things seem to turn out so well, I wonder why they don't build more;^(
I suspect that hotels operate on a different set of tenant laws (depending on state), where eviction is likely a whole lot easier to accomplish. I recall that, for instance, Oregon tenant laws allow for faster evictions of (and less stringent laws concerning) 'temporary' tenants (e.g. those who live in a hotel).
In most US states, law splits at 30 days. Under 30 days, it's transient accommodations (e.g., hotels, retreats, crisis centers, etc), over 30 days, it's a rental. Typically you can evict a "guest" (aka boarder or lodger) if they...
* can't pay * overstays the contract period or otherwise violates the terms (e.g., smoking in a non-smoking room, having too many people in the room) * safety risk (drunk/disorderly, infectious/contagious disease) * violating the law (e.g., drugs, prostitutes, etc)
There generally is no appeals process for eviction from transient accommodations. The proprietor can simply change the locks (easy to do with common electronic keycards) or call the police and have the people and their belongings immediately removed for trespassing (just like a restaurant). That would be illegal for a landlord to do to a tenant.
The only catch is that if the hotel cannot simply throw a persons' belongings in the street if the person is not present, but generally has the duty to safeguard the personal belongings until the person returns for them (if they need to rent the room out again, the general procedure is to take a picture of all the crap, pack it up into a bag and put it in a locked closet). Generally, if it is unclaimed after 6 months, the hotel can dispose of the items.
There is also an in-between situation where you can be legally classified as a boarder/lodger even if you stay over 30 days. The distinction is if you occupy part of premises but whose occupation/residency is still under the control of the owner. For example, if you rent a room in someone's private house that doesn't have its own entrance. Or maybe the owner still vacuums your room periodically or provides laundry services for you or free breakfast, you might be a classified lodger/boarder instead of a tenant and sacrifice most tenant rights even though your stay is over 30 days...
One of the current problems with training deep combinational neural networks is that it's often not easy to tell what you are training them to look for. People train NN blindly on vast data sets, but often have no idea how robust this training is before deploying them.
Do you think some of the mathematics surrounding orthogonal arrays can be extended to improve the metrics on how efficient or robust the training is of a neural network might be?
With all the renewed interest in post quantum computer cryptography, why do you think there is minimal research in the error correcting code styles of public-private key encryption? (e.g., the McEliece cryptosystem) Are there ones that you consider to be better candidates?
All we do know is that global climate change is happening and our inaction is making it much worse.
I'd say it the other way, our action is releasing more CO2. However, stopping our "action" may be worse for us (as a species) than not stopping. For the planet, it doesn't really matter too much, it's been hotter and more CO2 has been in the atmosphere in the past and anthropomorphically speaking, it turned out okay for us (or more specifically, it set the stage for our species). Of course our species isn't the only one on this planet, but that is in the realm of tradeoffs (e.g., we don't have passenger pigeons anymore, it was a choice we made).
It irks me that people are anthropomorphizing the planet as if it cared what we humans did to it. It is what we are doing to ourselves that is (or is not) the problem, and the solution needs to be what is best for us (not the planet).
Of course it is possible to make a good case that we should try to maintain some status quo somehow, but certainly our economic output, our growth-rate and our emissions output are not compatible with the status quo, so we need to do something. Since the answer is not in under the streetlight, we must search outside this set.
Who is to say that it isn't a superior option for our species is to simply adapt to warmer climate. It may not be as bad as the other options, or some hybrid option might turn out to be better. Simply dialing back the clock to 1990 (or whatever the current target is), is really only delaying things and detracting from a potentially better solution.
The air liquification stage has been tested in full prototype and passed all test by independent external observers. I believe this included the European Space Agency and the USAF.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding is that the pre-cooler air is *not quite* liquefied in SABRE. I have not been able to confirm an observer test (not even a press release from REL's website), but merely, the ESA and AFRL (us airforce research labs) confirming the feasibility of the SABRE engine cycle concept as in no theoretical problems exist for engine. The observer test referenced in the wikipedia and other places doesn't seem to be a valid link (not even a press release from the reaction engine's website), but other sources seem to suggest the ESA observed a test back in 2012 in an experimental rig (not a full prototype).
That is using liquid hydrogen to liquefy air in a fraction of a second to be feed into the rocket engine in sufficient quantities for it to be useful.
AFAIK, the liquid hydrogen is simply used as a heat sink in the pre-cooler (helium-cycle) heat exchanger. The final compression to liquid is done with a relatively standard turbo compressor.
The £120 million that has been announced is to build a full functional prototype Sabre engine. That is a pretty modest sum of money for "rocket" engine that would make all other space launch systems obsolete overnight. Even SpaceX's reusable rockets which they have still to land one would be dead in the water.
I think the $120M (not £120M, actually a £60M research grant from UK govt) is for a sub-scale prototype. It will of course take much more money to make a full scale model (Reaction estimates £250M) and probably much more for bigger one that would be required for heavy-lift capability (like SpaceX).
Please, could people actually investigate this project, its history and the major players who have invested in it before dismissing it out of hand based on intuition?
Funded by the UK govt is all you need to know about them...;^(
Of course the "visionary" behind this is Alan Bond whose major claim to fame is Project Daedalus. I think that was some sort of contest winner (on par with Mars One)...
His previous actual efforts was HOTOL and that was canned by the UK govt before it got off the drawing board... Skylon is basically HOTOL-3 (HOTOL-2 was proposed, but it didn't even get past the proposal stage)...
Okay, my 2cent internet investigation is complete. Your turn...
Does CA get to say "Fuck you, go spend another $60?"
I assume that was rhetorical. They government can always change their mind and generally you get the short end of the stick.
They have made it so it illegal to resell things from drop side crib to semi-automatic weapons. Generally you cannot legally sell recalled products even if the original manufacturer goes out of business. As for things that you don't intend to sell, but need a license for, they can do that too. There are examples of governments changing zoning on real property so current tenant cannot continue renting. They can change zoning so that existing businesses are no longer legal. Forced product recalls have triggered bankruptcy filings for companies throughout history.
However even bankrupt automobile companies have had the resources to pay for a recall. Just last year, Suzuki was forced to recall their Kisashi model for safety fixes even though they were bankrupt and weren't selling cars in the US anymore. When Kia went bankrupt, Hyundai assumed liability for all recalls as part of asset purchases. Of course, VW isn't about to go bankrupt any time soon so they would have to do this, but even if they did go bankrupt, they would be liable for at least some amount (to be determined by the bankruptcy judge relative to the other creditors and judgments that it faced).
But at the end of the day, the government isn't responsible for a dime. This is clearly illustrated by the FTS/Hangzhou tire recall case. Although FTS was not ultimately bankrupted by the recall (far fewer tires, about 5%, were returned than were estimated to be eligible), the NHTSA made it perfectly clear that it wasn't going to pitch in.
Books from 200 years ago might go so far as to put spaces around commas and semicolons on both sides, with the following space also being larger—a convention also used for periods at the time. This is related to the practice of putting quotation marks and parentheses on the outside; slender punctuation blocks of metal type like periods, commas, and semicolons were fragile, so surrounding them in sturdier blocks made them less likely to get broken when the word was added to the page's master negative (the frame) or if the text needed to be reflowed.
I'm curious why that would be. If additional space was always used in the movable type era, why wouldn't they simply make the block wider? I've seen several 16th century typeset works and at least the ones I've seen had reasonably tight spacing on periods.
I suspect that apparent extra spacing on periods, commas, and semicolons is more due to typographic emulation of french punctuation spacing style and justification aesthetics and potentially some block kerning limitations (e.g., punctuation after letters like r, v, and w) rather than driven by pure physical limitations.
Isn't harmful until you get a couple million cars running in the same location with low wind. As someone who saw in LA in the 80s and remembers orange/brown skies in Riverside I understand why these limits exist. Residents of WY may not understand and feel a bit resentful.
Perhaps a bigger problem than brown skies, was ground level ozone. Although the smog was brown in color due to NOx, the major reduction of smog problems in the LA basin had more to do with the reduction in volatile hydrocarbons (and improved gas efficiency).
It's a bit complicated, but by itself, NOx like O2 is mostly neutral to ozone production. Ozone is mostly produced by sunlight O2+uv->2O, O2+O->O3, but it is generally in an equilibrium with the O3->O2+O reaction. Like the O3->O2+O reaction, there is similarly a NO2+uv->NO+O reaction, and there is of course a corresponding ozone destruction reaction O3+NO->NO2+O2 reaction. However, the presence of volatile hydrocarbons can capture some of the NO which will reduce the NO available for the ozone destruction reaction. This can greatly increase the lifetime of ozone in the air.
At high volatile hydrocarbons to NOx ratios, ozone lifetime is limited by the amount of NOx, so reducing NOx helps to reduce ozone. Strangely, if you reduce volatile hydrocarbons to a level that it limits ozone formation, further reductions in NOx can actually increase ozone concentrations by slowing the rate of ozone destruction reaction via O3+NO->NO2+O2 path and simultaneously speeding up the reaction that volatile hydrocarbons use to capture NO which increases the lifetime of ozone in the air.
So in the current regime, it is generally more important to limit volatile hydrocarbon emissions than to squeeze out the last drop of NOx emissions. That might make the air a little more brownish that we would like, but it's better for the ozone concentration which is probably the worse health risk.
The concept of "encryption as munitions" concept fell apart when Phil Zimmerman made the point that he could print the PGP source code in a book and send it overseas. Politicians at the time didn't understand why code could be considered speech, until they realized that it could be in book form, which already had a long established first amendment protection.
Historically, there has been a difference between *ideas* and *knowledge*. Back in the days, the engineering/practical knowledge on how to construct machines that performed encryption efficiently wasn't widely available, so restricting transportation of such machines or the practical knowledge on how to replicate such machines overseas was analogous to sending say high-speed centrifuges overseas today.
As engineering knowledge becomes more pervasive, it makes less sense, and at some point in time you could send enough information to convey to another skilled party on the other side of the planet in a "tweet", you might wonder why it was ever like that, but that don't change the fact that it was at some point in time.
This has less to do with free speech, but more about the dissemination of practical knowledge over time and attempting to restrict the flow to one parties advantage (as fleeting as it might seem retrospectively, a few years or so head start can make a big difference).
As a perhaps less controversial example, glass manufacturing was once a state secret in Italy and Germany. Even though formulas for glass were potentially reverse-engineer-able, the knowledge on polishing and polishing machinery was closely guarded and prohibited from export.
Similarly, although you might be able to find out how to make an atomic bomb on-line somewhere, you probably can't find engineering specifications on building high-speed centrifuges needed to purify the isotopes to realize such a bomb (even if you had the "specs" in a book, you probably can't make the centrifuge parts in your 3d printer). Just maybe you would have to buy it from someone that a government doesn't want someone to sell it to you...
Maybe later when we all get replicator technology, we will wonder why such a silly restriction existed on something as trivial as a high-speed centrifuge, but in it's time, it served a purpose (even if you don't agree with the politics of the purpose) even if later it seemed moot.
This one is a long shot, but hey, -somebody- wins the lottery. Stick with it.
Bad analogy, often nobody wins the lottery, and they have a new drawing the next week with all the loser's money thrown in the pot to make it interesting for the new suckers...
Any experiment that provides verifiable evidence that contradicts theory shows that the theory is wrong, period. (Feynman Lectures)
Also not quite the right Feynman spirit. The easiest person to fool is yourself, so you need to avoid the Millikan-Ehrenhaft measurement problem...
There are even Nazi websites and a Nazi party in the US, and the government does nothing about it! That way there is only the citizenry's common sense to prevent the Nazi to grab power there!
And surprisingly that hasn't backfired. yet...
Probably because Nazis are the only group that virtually every non-member would unquestionably define as evil.
Or maybe because our constitution prevents naturalized citizens from Austria from becoming president (sorry Arnold;^)
In general, what you can take across a border is not the same as what you can do inside the border... (e.g., booze, guns, cigarettes, etc), why do you expect "encryption" or "munitions" (basically what encryption used to be classified as) to be any different?
Given $x, large number (fortunately, not a majority, but a disappointingly large number) of people seem to be unable to budget for a place to live or food to eat. They will spend their money on things like gambling, booze, drugs, get-rich-quick schemes, fortune tellers, and other scam artists (or perhaps shady financial advisers), and we will still have to bail them out.
The real question is it better to give people raw money (e.g. basic income) or vouchers that they can only spend a certain way (e.g., the current bureaucratic welfare system). The answer will depend on where you are in the political spectrum. If you want to bail these people out anyhow after they fritted away the basic income money, you are a liberal, if you resent that basic income was wasted and want to control what they spend you are a conservative, if you don't think the government should be in that business in the first place, you are a libertarian.
FWIW, in my opinion, I think the real problem is giving people "basic-income" money w/o teaching them about money. You can see this problem in 5-year olds, and 21-year olds and sadly 50-year olds. Giving out basic income w/o teaching people about money would be like giving your 15-yo the keys to a car w/o driving lessons. Sure, some of them might know enough to drive already (and have been driving since they were 12), but odds are, most still would need practice as they still make mistakes and then there's always the question of what do you do with the small percentage of them should never be behind a wheel?
IMHO, there should be a benefits licence for basic-income. If you can't pass the test, you get state-welfare instead. Also, like a driver's licence, there should be a learners-permit time where someone has to "drive" with you before you are allowed to go on your own. In addition, even when you are on your own, if you "crash" too many times (e.g., need supplemental welfare because of poor budgeting), your licence for basic income should be revocable. It should be a "privilege" to get basic income, not a right. The right is to simply survive.
However, I'm sure that's not how this is going to work anywhere. It will simply be organized as a "block-grant" welfare program because the liberal politics behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
They still can't mark them "wild caught" unless they are. I wonder- do they still get labeled as "Atlantic Salmon"?
Fast fact: In the US, Atlantic salmon is considered endangered so cannot be legally be "wild caught" and sold in the US, so nearly 100% of Atlantic Salmon sold in supermarkets in the US is farmed.
This particular GM is to help AquAdvantage increase production of Farmed Atlantic Salmon, and this ruling will basically mean that it will be labeled simply as Farmed Atlantic Salmon with country of origin listed as Canada or Panama.
And there's also the sea-based Trident SLBM, which is arguably the bigger deterrent. Everyone knows where the Minuteman-III missiles are. Only people aboard the submarines, and the upper brass in the Navy know where the Ohio-class SSBNs are.
FWIW, advances in submarine detection technology have gotten to the point that many feel that submarines will eventually become the "battle-ship" under the sea (e.g., obsolete). Although today, stationary passive sonar nets only listen for submarines near coasts and "chokepoints" that subs traverse, improved information and processing power will eventually allow passive sonar in the open ocean and even optical illumination detection using drones equipped with high-powered laser-leds. When that become practical, it is pretty much game over for subs and it they will go the way of the battleship (probably to be replaced with swarms of harder to detect underwater drone ships like fighter planes are being replaced today with flying drones).
FWIW, they've been doing laser-doppler cooling for a while (all the articles you hear about cooling atoms down near absolute zero generally used laser-doppler cooling). This anti-stokes technique is very similar to the laser-dopper cooling technique in that both involve on average the emission of photons at higher mean energy than those absorbed.
In the case of laser doppler cooling, you illuminate a batch of atoms with a laser from multiple directions at a slightly lower frequency than a transitional energy state. Atoms that are thermally in motion, but are instantaneously moving towards one of the lasers will absorb more photons (because doppler blue-shift makes the atom see the slightly higher frequency matching its transition energy state from the laser if it is moving towards from laser) causing the atom to lose net momentum in that direction and become slightly cooler (mostly because the photon will be re-emitted in a random direction).
In the case of the anti-stokes technique, you need to construct a system that has florescence (emits light a certain frequency when excited) with a bandgap, you then need to pump the energy into the system at the lower frequency. The trick (which is what makes this hard), is that the system needs to be tuned so that the energy you pump in is more efficiently converted into florescence energy than general thermal heating and the photons that are released by florescence can efficiently leave the system to avoid secondary heating.
Anti-stokes is interesting because it has the potential to be able to cool things microscopically (rather than at the atomic scale only).
AFAIKT, this team pulled out quite a few stops to setup this system. Apparently, they setup a laser trap to localize the florescent crystal (doped-YLF) and the "liquid" was D2O (deuterium or heavy water) to get the right thermal gradients for the laser trap for their experiment.
If you are interested, you can read about it here.
Your initial thoughts are wrong.
This is a type of encryption algorithm known as homomorphic encryption, which allows one to do operate on encrypted data without decrypting it.
This has no bearing on the strength of the encryption against an adversary.
Practical homomorphic encryption (like this MSFT product) is based on simplified encryption (to make it more practical, duh). AFAIKT in this case the MSFT product is based on a derivative YASHE (yet another somewhat homomorphic encryption) scheme. This is a bit more like steganography than pure encryption as it "hides" the encryption in a ring and requires lattice theory to generate a unique decryption (meaning you can only perform a few addition/multiplication operations before you have to re-decrypt, re-encrypt). Although theoretically, you can make this encryption "strong" by selecting different parameters (and introducing more overhead and lower error bounds), at some point there is a fundamental limit related to the entropy of the data set itself (which for medical-like data is pretty low entropy).
And then there is the (in)famous sum-product puzzle, which although is kind of an interesting puzzle in that in illustrates how seemingly impossible obfuscation can be removed by the most innocuous oracle queries.
What will break this type of encryption is not brute force, but say on medical data examining distributional anomalies to make a dictionary of sorts. Also since this appears to be some sort of "ECB-like" encryption (most data is encrypted the same way so you can operate on it), we all know how weak that can be in some situations...
This is why in most medical research, data must be de-identified, not merely encrypted. Not that fixes things by a long shot, but it's better than simply encrypting and hoping...
As for annual physicals, I'm pretty sure that's only a thing in countries with privatised healthcare. I don't think the NHS has ever proposed such at thing.
I guess they aren't annual in the UK, but every 5 years or so...
Indeed, the effort to blacklist homeopathy is entirely thanks to Marsh and the rest of the Good Thinking Society. Please consider donating to them so they can continue their fight against wasteful and dangerous pseudoscience. Homeopathic owl isn't cheap you know.
Maybe they can join the fight to stop wasting money for unnecessary mammography and prostate exams while they are at it. And of course the bogus annual physical too...
Unfortunately, that might be too non-PC?
Even lacking the actual presence of the landlord, it seems that if the "floor manager" either got discounted rent or was paid a salary for their work as the "social coordinator" (I hate that name BTW) then they could classify as a proxy for the landlord and therefore be classed as the "resident". Of course, the catch here is that at that point, evicting the SC would be very troublesome if they got out of hand, so vetting that person would be difficult and potentially risky to the endeavour.
I suspect in practice, the "SC" would be hired in a capacity similar to that of a live-in apartment or motel manager by the owner (or property management company) and likely could be fired at will (and probably evicted at the end of the month at worst depending on the employment contract they signed). I don't see the "SC" as much different than any other live-in employee on a residency contract in a motel or apartment complex, except that they wouldn't get paid as much for their time...
A bigger problem might be the wage problem. The SC has to put in 'x' hours and is only compensated 'y' amount, does that meet minimum wage requirements and does a rental subsidy count as enough wages to get the property management company out hot water including OT, on-call time, and of course the 24-hour partying that might occur in one of these setups. $10hour * 24hours * 30 days = $7200/month (that's alot of free rent even in silicon valley)...
It will take a fancy lawyer to figure this stuff out...
:s/science/medicine/
If you count discovering the fact that "invisible" bacteria and viruses can cause diseases and figuring out that vaccines and antibiotics can destroy these invisible menaces medicine, I agree, but I tend to call that stuff science. Medicine (like engineering) to me is more about protocols and practice, than science which is about theory and discovery, but feel free to harbor different definitions...
For most of our history on this planet, 30 was "about ready to die." So, yes, you are old. Every day you live from now forward is a gift of modern science.
Common misconception Mr(s) troll. Historically, if you made it past childhood (high infant mortality rate, childhood illnesses), the average age at death was closer to 50 in prehistoric times (vs 80 today). Of course the *average* age is greatly depressed by childhood deaths which have gone down greatly thanks to modern science...
No, these were called "boarding houses". They were zoned out of existence in most places because they attracted a transient, low income population that was thought to be undesirable.
In today's "gig economy" we have all become transient low income workers, so the stigma has been removed. Of course they need a trendy new name like "co-living", this is the 21st century.
In china, they just call them factory dorms (generally owned by the factory to house transient workers that come in from the countryside)...
I think google and facebook (Anton Menlo) were thinking about building a few of these...
Recently, these things seem to turn out so well, I wonder why they don't build more ;^(
I suspect that hotels operate on a different set of tenant laws (depending on state), where eviction is likely a whole lot easier to accomplish. I recall that, for instance, Oregon tenant laws allow for faster evictions of (and less stringent laws concerning) 'temporary' tenants (e.g. those who live in a hotel).
In most US states, law splits at 30 days. Under 30 days, it's transient accommodations (e.g., hotels, retreats, crisis centers, etc), over 30 days, it's a rental. Typically you can evict a "guest" (aka boarder or lodger) if they...
* can't pay
* overstays the contract period or otherwise violates the terms (e.g., smoking in a non-smoking room, having too many people in the room)
* safety risk (drunk/disorderly, infectious/contagious disease)
* violating the law (e.g., drugs, prostitutes, etc)
There generally is no appeals process for eviction from transient accommodations. The proprietor can simply change the locks (easy to do with common electronic keycards) or call the police and have the people and their belongings immediately removed for trespassing (just like a restaurant). That would be illegal for a landlord to do to a tenant.
The only catch is that if the hotel cannot simply throw a persons' belongings in the street if the person is not present, but generally has the duty to safeguard the personal belongings until the person returns for them (if they need to rent the room out again, the general procedure is to take a picture of all the crap, pack it up into a bag and put it in a locked closet). Generally, if it is unclaimed after 6 months, the hotel can dispose of the items.
There is also an in-between situation where you can be legally classified as a boarder/lodger even if you stay over 30 days. The distinction is if you occupy part of premises but whose occupation/residency is still under the control of the owner. For example, if you rent a room in someone's private house that doesn't have its own entrance. Or maybe the owner still vacuums your room periodically or provides laundry services for you or free breakfast, you might be a classified lodger/boarder instead of a tenant and sacrifice most tenant rights even though your stay is over 30 days...
One of the current problems with training deep combinational neural networks is that it's often not easy to tell what you are training them to look for. People train NN blindly on vast data sets, but often have no idea how robust this training is before deploying them.
Do you think some of the mathematics surrounding orthogonal arrays can be extended to improve the metrics on how efficient or robust the training is of a neural network might be?
With all the renewed interest in post quantum computer cryptography, why do you think there is minimal research in the error correcting code styles of public-private key encryption? (e.g., the McEliece cryptosystem) Are there ones that you consider to be better candidates?
All we do know is that global climate change is happening and our inaction is making it much worse.
I'd say it the other way, our action is releasing more CO2. However, stopping our "action" may be worse for us (as a species) than not stopping. For the planet, it doesn't really matter too much, it's been hotter and more CO2 has been in the atmosphere in the past and anthropomorphically speaking, it turned out okay for us (or more specifically, it set the stage for our species). Of course our species isn't the only one on this planet, but that is in the realm of tradeoffs (e.g., we don't have passenger pigeons anymore, it was a choice we made).
It irks me that people are anthropomorphizing the planet as if it cared what we humans did to it. It is what we are doing to ourselves that is (or is not) the problem, and the solution needs to be what is best for us (not the planet).
Of course it is possible to make a good case that we should try to maintain some status quo somehow, but certainly our economic output, our growth-rate and our emissions output are not compatible with the status quo, so we need to do something. Since the answer is not in under the streetlight, we must search outside this set.
Who is to say that it isn't a superior option for our species is to simply adapt to warmer climate. It may not be as bad as the other options, or some hybrid option might turn out to be better. Simply dialing back the clock to 1990 (or whatever the current target is), is really only delaying things and detracting from a potentially better solution.
The air liquification stage has been tested in full prototype and passed all test by independent external observers. I believe this included the European Space Agency and the USAF.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding is that the pre-cooler air is *not quite* liquefied in SABRE. I have not been able to confirm an observer test (not even a press release from REL's website), but merely, the ESA and AFRL (us airforce research labs) confirming the feasibility of the SABRE engine cycle concept as in no theoretical problems exist for engine. The observer test referenced in the wikipedia and other places doesn't seem to be a valid link (not even a press release from the reaction engine's website), but other sources seem to suggest the ESA observed a test back in 2012 in an experimental rig (not a full prototype).
That is using liquid hydrogen to liquefy air in a fraction of a second to be feed into the rocket engine in sufficient quantities for it to be useful.
AFAIK, the liquid hydrogen is simply used as a heat sink in the pre-cooler (helium-cycle) heat exchanger. The final compression to liquid is done with a relatively standard turbo compressor.
The £120 million that has been announced is to build a full functional prototype Sabre engine. That is a pretty modest sum of money for "rocket" engine that would make all other space launch systems obsolete overnight. Even SpaceX's reusable rockets which they have still to land one would be dead in the water.
I think the $120M (not £120M, actually a £60M research grant from UK govt) is for a sub-scale prototype. It will of course take much more money to make a full scale model (Reaction estimates £250M) and probably much more for bigger one that would be required for heavy-lift capability (like SpaceX).
Please, could people actually investigate this project, its history and the major players who have invested in it before dismissing it out of hand based on intuition?
Funded by the UK govt is all you need to know about them... ;^(
Of course the "visionary" behind this is Alan Bond whose major claim to fame is Project Daedalus. I think that was some sort of contest winner (on par with Mars One)...
His previous actual efforts was HOTOL and that was canned by the UK govt before it got off the drawing board... Skylon is basically HOTOL-3 (HOTOL-2 was proposed, but it didn't even get past the proposal stage)...
Okay, my 2cent internet investigation is complete. Your turn...
Does CA get to say "Fuck you, go spend another $60?"
I assume that was rhetorical. They government can always change their mind and generally you get the short end of the stick.
They have made it so it illegal to resell things from drop side crib to semi-automatic weapons. Generally you cannot legally sell recalled products even if the original manufacturer goes out of business. As for things that you don't intend to sell, but need a license for, they can do that too. There are examples of governments changing zoning on real property so current tenant cannot continue renting. They can change zoning so that existing businesses are no longer legal. Forced product recalls have triggered bankruptcy filings for companies throughout history.
However even bankrupt automobile companies have had the resources to pay for a recall. Just last year, Suzuki was forced to recall their Kisashi model for safety fixes even though they were bankrupt and weren't selling cars in the US anymore. When Kia went bankrupt, Hyundai assumed liability for all recalls as part of asset purchases. Of course, VW isn't about to go bankrupt any time soon so they would have to do this, but even if they did go bankrupt, they would be liable for at least some amount (to be determined by the bankruptcy judge relative to the other creditors and judgments that it faced).
But at the end of the day, the government isn't responsible for a dime. This is clearly illustrated by the FTS/Hangzhou tire recall case. Although FTS was not ultimately bankrupted by the recall (far fewer tires, about 5%, were returned than were estimated to be eligible), the NHTSA made it perfectly clear that it wasn't going to pitch in.
Books from 200 years ago might go so far as to put spaces around commas and semicolons on both sides, with the following space also being larger—a convention also used for periods at the time. This is related to the practice of putting quotation marks and parentheses on the outside; slender punctuation blocks of metal type like periods, commas, and semicolons were fragile, so surrounding them in sturdier blocks made them less likely to get broken when the word was added to the page's master negative (the frame) or if the text needed to be reflowed.
I'm curious why that would be. If additional space was always used in the movable type era, why wouldn't they simply make the block wider? I've seen several 16th century typeset works and at least the ones I've seen had reasonably tight spacing on periods.
I suspect that apparent extra spacing on periods, commas, and semicolons is more due to typographic emulation of french punctuation spacing style and justification aesthetics and potentially some block kerning limitations (e.g., punctuation after letters like r, v, and w) rather than driven by pure physical limitations.
Isn't harmful until you get a couple million cars running in the same location with low wind. As someone who saw in LA in the 80s and remembers orange/brown skies in Riverside I understand why these limits exist. Residents of WY may not understand and feel a bit resentful.
Perhaps a bigger problem than brown skies, was ground level ozone. Although the smog was brown in color due to NOx, the major reduction of smog problems in the LA basin had more to do with the reduction in volatile hydrocarbons (and improved gas efficiency).
It's a bit complicated, but by itself, NOx like O2 is mostly neutral to ozone production. Ozone is mostly produced by sunlight O2+uv->2O, O2+O->O3, but it is generally in an equilibrium with the O3->O2+O reaction. Like the O3->O2+O reaction, there is similarly a NO2+uv->NO+O reaction, and there is of course a corresponding ozone destruction reaction O3+NO->NO2+O2 reaction. However, the presence of volatile hydrocarbons can capture some of the NO which will reduce the NO available for the ozone destruction reaction. This can greatly increase the lifetime of ozone in the air.
At high volatile hydrocarbons to NOx ratios, ozone lifetime is limited by the amount of NOx, so reducing NOx helps to reduce ozone. Strangely, if you reduce volatile hydrocarbons to a level that it limits ozone formation, further reductions in NOx can actually increase ozone concentrations by slowing the rate of ozone destruction reaction via O3+NO->NO2+O2 path and simultaneously speeding up the reaction that volatile hydrocarbons use to capture NO which increases the lifetime of ozone in the air.
So in the current regime, it is generally more important to limit volatile hydrocarbon emissions than to squeeze out the last drop of NOx emissions. That might make the air a little more brownish that we would like, but it's better for the ozone concentration which is probably the worse health risk.
The concept of "encryption as munitions" concept fell apart when Phil Zimmerman made the point that he could print the PGP source code in a book and send it overseas. Politicians at the time didn't understand why code could be considered speech, until they realized that it could be in book form, which already had a long established first amendment protection.
Historically, there has been a difference between *ideas* and *knowledge*. Back in the days, the engineering/practical knowledge on how to construct machines that performed encryption efficiently wasn't widely available, so restricting transportation of such machines or the practical knowledge on how to replicate such machines overseas was analogous to sending say high-speed centrifuges overseas today.
As engineering knowledge becomes more pervasive, it makes less sense, and at some point in time you could send enough information to convey to another skilled party on the other side of the planet in a "tweet", you might wonder why it was ever like that, but that don't change the fact that it was at some point in time.
This has less to do with free speech, but more about the dissemination of practical knowledge over time and attempting to restrict the flow to one parties advantage (as fleeting as it might seem retrospectively, a few years or so head start can make a big difference).
As a perhaps less controversial example, glass manufacturing was once a state secret in Italy and Germany. Even though formulas for glass were potentially reverse-engineer-able, the knowledge on polishing and polishing machinery was closely guarded and prohibited from export.
Similarly, although you might be able to find out how to make an atomic bomb on-line somewhere, you probably can't find engineering specifications on building high-speed centrifuges needed to purify the isotopes to realize such a bomb (even if you had the "specs" in a book, you probably can't make the centrifuge parts in your 3d printer). Just maybe you would have to buy it from someone that a government doesn't want someone to sell it to you...
Maybe later when we all get replicator technology, we will wonder why such a silly restriction existed on something as trivial as a high-speed centrifuge, but in it's time, it served a purpose (even if you don't agree with the politics of the purpose) even if later it seemed moot.
This one is a long shot, but hey, -somebody- wins the lottery. Stick with it.
Bad analogy, often nobody wins the lottery, and they have a new drawing the next week with all the loser's money thrown in the pot to make it interesting for the new suckers...
Any experiment that provides verifiable evidence that contradicts theory shows that the theory is wrong, period. (Feynman Lectures)
Also not quite the right Feynman spirit. The easiest person to fool is yourself, so you need to avoid the Millikan-Ehrenhaft measurement problem...
There are even Nazi websites and a Nazi party in the US, and the government does nothing about it!
That way there is only the citizenry's common sense to prevent the Nazi to grab power there!
And surprisingly that hasn't backfired.
yet...
Probably because Nazis are the only group that virtually every non-member would unquestionably define as evil.
Or maybe because our constitution prevents naturalized citizens from Austria from becoming president (sorry Arnold ;^)
In general, what you can take across a border is not the same as what you can do inside the border...
(e.g., booze, guns, cigarettes, etc), why do you expect "encryption" or "munitions" (basically what encryption used to be classified as) to be any different?
Stay inside, or stay outside...
Given $x, large number (fortunately, not a majority, but a disappointingly large number) of people seem to be unable to budget for a place to live or food to eat. They will spend their money on things like gambling, booze, drugs, get-rich-quick schemes, fortune tellers, and other scam artists (or perhaps shady financial advisers), and we will still have to bail them out.
The real question is it better to give people raw money (e.g. basic income) or vouchers that they can only spend a certain way (e.g., the current bureaucratic welfare system). The answer will depend on where you are in the political spectrum. If you want to bail these people out anyhow after they fritted away the basic income money, you are a liberal, if you resent that basic income was wasted and want to control what they spend you are a conservative, if you don't think the government should be in that business in the first place, you are a libertarian.
FWIW, in my opinion, I think the real problem is giving people "basic-income" money w/o teaching them about money. You can see this problem in 5-year olds, and 21-year olds and sadly 50-year olds. Giving out basic income w/o teaching people about money would be like giving your 15-yo the keys to a car w/o driving lessons. Sure, some of them might know enough to drive already (and have been driving since they were 12), but odds are, most still would need practice as they still make mistakes and then there's always the question of what do you do with the small percentage of them should never be behind a wheel?
IMHO, there should be a benefits licence for basic-income. If you can't pass the test, you get state-welfare instead. Also, like a driver's licence, there should be a learners-permit time where someone has to "drive" with you before you are allowed to go on your own. In addition, even when you are on your own, if you "crash" too many times (e.g., need supplemental welfare because of poor budgeting), your licence for basic income should be revocable. It should be a "privilege" to get basic income, not a right. The right is to simply survive.
However, I'm sure that's not how this is going to work anywhere. It will simply be organized as a "block-grant" welfare program because the liberal politics behind it.
They elected a new speaker and passed a budget this week. Or didn't CNBC mention that?
No, CNBC was too busy trying to sabotage the latest presidential debate...