You have to be a European resident to get one and you have to make a legal declaration of your place of residence before they'll issue a domain.
As I understand it, you can also register a.EU domain if you are also in Norway, Iceland, or Liechtenstein (which are not members of the EU, but are still party to the EEA). They do exclude Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, Turkey, and Vatican City from getting.EU domains presumably because they are not part of the EEA.
AFAIK, the UK hasn't yet dropped out of the EEA (apparently, to make it match up with the article 50 EU-brexit date, the UK has to invoke article 127 to give notice by March 29, or basically today).
Until the UK formally announces drops out of the EEA, this is really just petty posturing...
Have you ever even met somebody who is in business selling products? Retail markup + box + packing + manuals + shrinkwrap + media (CD/DVD) + sales processing (credit card 2% tax) and finally marketing & product placement all take a sizable chunk out of a product's price. The general recommendation I've been told JUST for marketing overhead is 30% of the budget!
Now 30% might seem at the high end of the classic business model but it depends on the market. Apple wants to keep all the gains of going online for themselves rather than for the publishers (who often take an undo share while developers... like everywhere else the value creators often get the least in the chain of leeches.) The App store has a massive exposure with the promise to move much higher volume -- like how major brands PAY for shelf placement in the isles. Apple doesn't yet do a version of this but makes everybody pay more to be in the store.
I don't know if 30% is a good deal. It doesn't sound all that bad if you price accordingly and are clever in selling direct at a lower price-- where it is likely that the App store sales beat your own website... I've noticed more apps going on their store exclusively. They must have done the math for their situation.
Not to mention there are a LOT of FREE Apps on the App Store that Apple earns exactly ZERO percent on. That 30% from Paid Apps partially subsidizes the FREE Apps.
But no one ever stops to factor THAT in.
If it wasn't clear from my original post, my point was Apple charges 30% for In-app purchases... Most of those "free" apps subsidize their development with in-app purchases of which Apple taxes those customers 30%. Don't get me wrong, there's lots of good crippleware in the app stores, but everyone has mouths to feed so there must be some paying customers (or deep pocketed VCs)....
By locking their customers in a walled garden and charging outside companies 30% to sell things to those customers, they have little need to sell the information about their customers outside of their walled garden.
The other ecosystems don't charge 30% to outside companies and instead get them to pay them money for information about their customers...
Basically, Apple is making money taxing exchanges in eco-system where other eco-systems are relying on value-add sales...
You know, it's a corporation thing... The shareholders made me do it.
Since Zuck owns enough Facebook Class B shares** to give himself 60% of the voting rights in FB, I'm not sure that is the best argument for him to make...
**Facebook Class B shares have 10x the voting rights of Class A shares...
Thank you for contacting Facebook(tm) Support. Have a nice day!
Facebook can gladly provide the names of the authors of those illegal ads. The parties that create those ads should be held liable.
Except for the small detail that the Fair Housing Act makes printing, making, or publishing such ads illegal. Not just making.
Of course there are some "safe-harbors" that publishers can attempt to use use.
All advertisements should have prominent display of equal housing opportunity logotype, statement, or slogan as a means of educating the homeseeking public that the property is available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Or perhaps include a statement with all advertising that states something like: All real estate advertised herein is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to advertise "any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." We will not knowingly accept any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law. All persons are hereby informed that all dwellings advertised are available on an equal opportunity basis.
On the other hand, potential evidence used against publishers are: selective availability of advertisements (this is what Facebook is doing); selective inclusion of equal housing opportunity statements or logos in different advertising campaigns; advertising with human models that cater to one segment of the population without complementary advertising in other segments.
Facebook's problem is that the tools they give to advertiser allow them to explicitly include/exclude certain groups of people when defining a target for their housing ads is basically the same as for any other ad. So by excluding people that have interests in certain areas (ethnic affinities, like Interest in Telemundo, or gender affinities, like women in technology) they can effectively hide the advertisements from people advertisers want to discriminate against. By providing these tools, they are basically accomplices in the violation of the Fair Housing Act, not a neutral party just providing an ad platform...
The article says that 75% of the land has lost at least one of its functions.
No, the report doesn't even say that. It says...
Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity.
The metric they are using is biodiversity and the assessment technique they are using estimates that most of the forcing function for a reduction in bio-diversity is human related climate change since the beginning of human existance (not actually direct human intervention) which is how they can presume impact for areas where humans have never visited (and get to 75%-90%)....
Consequently, if your metric is not biodiversity, or if your threshold is not "escaped substantial impact" since the beginning of human existence due to climate change or direct intervention, your mileage may vary...
At least he actually followed through and did what he promised
Did he? I don't believe it. Where's the proof that he launched? The article contained no pictures or videos. The evidence that he launched is far flimsier than the evidence that the Earth is a sphere so, by his own standards, we should simply refuse to believe that he did this and then, just perhaps, he might actually learn something valuable from this non-event.
FWIW, Matt Hartman (a well known AP news photographer) was apparently the "designated reputable witness" to the actual event. You can google it in a few places...
However, for more entertainment value, the production video is on Noize TV. Of course you might not be predisposed to believe the video, but apparently Matt was there, so there you have it...
Then again, with all the Fake News floating around in the inter-tubes, a healthy dose of skepticism is usually warranted. Of course many align our skepticism to those reflected by our respective echo chambers, but on occasion, we should open the door to our echo chambers to glimpse at the sky to align ourselves... On occasion...
Despite all talks of duplicate TNG/DS9 "rikers", it will be very difficult to destroy and replicate exactly someone using a "transporter" like device because of the No cloning theorm.
However, physics doesn't appear to preclude teleportation of some sort where the replication is dependent on the destruction. In fact people have been able to teleport quantum states of photons as far as a satellite in earth's orbit... Since photons are nominally the same except for their quantum state, that's basically teleportation.
Of course teleportation (in this quantum sense) requires pre-entangled objects to exist on both sides and merely theoretically allows...
1. an ingress device to destructively make classical measurements of quantum state of an original object in proximity of one of the pre-tangled objects, 2. take those classical measurements and communicate them to an egress device near the other pre-entangled object 3. an egress device is not longer prohibited from using the communicated measurements and the pre-entangled object to reconstruct the original quantum state in target object (which the act of which destroys the quantum state of the pre-entangled objects and overwrites the target object with the quantum state of the original object).
As you might imagine, this a whole lot easier, if the object to be teleported is a photon because we have relatively simple ways of generating pre-entangled photons, reasonably simply ingress devices to make measurements of quantum states of photons and actual egress devices to modify the quantum state of photons.
Beyond a photon, well, all this telportation stuff is currently very hard, but not yet proved theoretically impossible.;^)
There is no real "brine problem" with desalination. All of the salt in the brine was there originally. Desalination just temporarily separates the salt and the water, without changing the amount of either.
The "brine" problem is if you dump it back into the ocean, it takes more and more energy to desalinate. Eventually you can reach the point of "peak-salt". Usually it doesn't get to that, but it is a problem you often need to think about...
It's funny to me when somebody tells me to conserve water because of the water shortage in other countries. It's not like the water I save is going to be shipped to Africa, so, the only reason to conserve water is to save my money.
Of course water isn't going to be shipped to Africa, but potable water has a pretty high carbon footprint. Also if much of your local water comes from natural aquifers, reducing the amount of water pumped out by a community reduces the general risk of local subsidence/sinkholes/etc...
There are other reasons to use less water than to simply save money.
Once Tech solves the problem, the price will come down substantially.
Heck there are some very well known places that have fairly good DeSal plants supplying water already. There isn't a huge need (yet) therefore it is still expensive.
De-sal plants currently have two big flaws, you need to be near the ocean and you need to dump the brine somewhere. Okay, brine isn't high-level nuclear waste, but there's a lot more of it than high-level nuclear waste...
There's some folks working on making commercial chemical product like sodium bicarbonate calcium chloride from the brine which can finance the processing of the brine. However, right now, people are mostly just dumping the brine (back into the ocean making it locally saltier or into evaporation pools that contaminate the land).
May be alarmist, but certainly the cracks in the water infrastructure of large cities are showing...
Melbourne, Australia Mexico City, Mexico Cape Town, South Africa Sao Paulo, Brazil Jakarta, Indonesia
Certainly, we aren't running out of fresh water as a species. However, the fresh water isn't where the people are, and the infrastructure planning to adjust for fluctuations in historical rainfall patterns is lagging greatly.
The problems are likely technically solvable, but may be so expensive that they will serve displace populations (negative growth in mega cities). I don't think 5B people will die of thirst by 2050, but I can certainly imagine that 5B people wouldn't live where they might have been if it weren't for water issues.
Some people say a coder is made outta mud A poor coder's made outta hacking and fud Hacking and fud and scripts and caffeine A mind that's weak and a keyboard that's strong
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Google, don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store
I wake up in a basement where the sun doesn't shine I picked up my keyboard and walked in half past nine I hacked sixteen slocs of fine gui code And the manager said "well, bless my soul"
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Apple, don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one morning', it was drizzlin' rain Hacking and trouble are my middle name I learned coding in a bootcamp from an ol' timer mom Can't no high toned woman make me stand in a scrum
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Microsoft, don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store
If you see me debuggin', better step aside A lotta devs didn't, a lotta devs cried One window of logs, the other source hell If the first doesn't find it, then the second one will
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Facebook, don't you fire me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to your company store
Please google for information about Carol Davidsen, director for media analytics for Obama's 2012 campaign and Ken Strasma, Targeting Director for the 2008 Obama and 2004 Kerry campaigns.
Apparently Christopher Wylie (the renegade from Cambridge in the crosshairs of facebook) learned the craft from about micro-targeting and data politics from Ken Strasma.
If you are search engine impaired, you can start here...
I think you may be confusing iterated game theory with single instance.
Behaviors like cooperation is likely only an emergent property of iterated or repeated game theory. (e.g., like that tit-for-tat iterated prisoner's dilemma). If players think it a single instance, (e.g, staying at a company for an average of 2 year w/ only annual raises), I suspect behavior for perceived on-offs reverts to the single instance case.
Lots of people don't vote because they simply don't care or can't be bothered, or fear they will lose the right to complain. People litter generally because of the tragedy of the commons, but often don't because of fear of getting caught. People often don't walk out on checks because of fear of getting caught. People play the lottery for entertainment or FOMO (fear of missing out), people who use "math" don't play the lottery.
Fear is often a big motivator for behavior. Probably fear is a big contributor to"civil society" maybe even higher than self interest and has to be factored into any game theoretic payoff matrix. Since people have different fear levels, they have different payoff matrices and thus different behaviors. Certainly some other folks may have so-called "moral" scruples and of course that could be factored into the payoff matrix, but I suspect that is not a moral payoff, but simply a function of people attempting to play the "iterated" long-game (e.g., karma, purgatory, whatever), not part of a one-off interaction. Burn that person a few times and I suspect their "morals" would change meaning it is less part of their payoff matrix for the paycheck "doctor" interaction, but just part of their larger game (any chain of decisions generates the "moral" payoff, independent of the individual outcome of any of those decisions).
Some people might simply feel a pure strategy of "moral" selection has better long term fitness, whereas as evidence shows that in mixed environment you often need a more discerning strategy that involves some potentially "non-moral" behavior for better outcomes that depend on the payoff result. Unfortunately studies also show that discrimination is also an effective strategy for improving outcomes of some iterated games. Some may not consider that very moral behavior, but it sadly doesn't mean it isn't effective.
Maybe that's a shallow view of morals to reduce it to game theory, but I personally think morals are only part of the long-game behavior. Given the amount of people going to confessionals, or falling from the purer faith, but still attempting to be seen as mostly "moral", my conclusion is morals easily dismiss-able by many folks on convenience when they forget they are playing the long game and is only emergent, when not dependent on outcomes.
FYI: Magic Leap board members: Sundar Pichai (Google), Jack Ma (Alibaba), Paul Jacobs (Qualcomm)
Of course you have to remember, Magic Leap is not really a traditional tech company, it is a marketing company (actually more of an independent record label / AR content company) that stumbled upon some piezoelectric fiberoptic scanning technology (via Prof Eric Seibel UW) and is now attempting make it work using some kind of custom silicon photonics device. Their goal is to apparently license the resulting technology for use by content developers (part of their marketing company roots).
Your position is a key piece of information when negotiating, a piece that Americans almost never have because of this custom. The only reason you should WANT your salary to be a secret is that you think you make the most compared to your peers. That or tax evasion.
Your salary is never "secret". It is likely your boss and all the superiors up to the CEO and all the people in HR and payroll know your salary and besides it is reported to the IRS.
The question is simply if you want your salary generally known to your colleagues so it can be used for their advantage in negotiating their salary. This is a question that can be partly answered with game theory.
Unfortunately, game theory tells us that lying is dominate strategy. If others are honest, it makes sense to lie since you get the same benefit without any risk. And if others lie, you have nothing to gain and honesty comes with a risk. Therefore, everyone lies.
So rather than put every in the position of wanting to directly lie, out of politeness we offer everyone the opportunity for a passive lie of omission.
Mass and energy are basically the same thing when it comes to inertia/acceleration/gravity. You measure "mass-energy" and the quantity is conserved (mass doesn't disappear, it converts to energy, and vice-versa). What most folks think of as "build-up" of mass at high velocity is really just a build up in momentum/energy (mass and energy are the same and you can store energy in momentum, what people think of as E=mc^2 is more properly E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 + other energy terms, where p=momentum) and it is an artifact if you define mass of an object independent of velocity as simply as rest mass (e.g., ignore the pc term in energy). Also the so called conversion of mass-to-energy when an atom disassembles is mis-accounting of the binding energy of the atom. It is more correct to say mass-energy is conserved.
As to "why" mass-energy is a conserved quantity, that is a deeper question to which physics has not yet full answer, but conservation is a consequence of Noether's theorem under the assumption that the laws of physics don't change over time (which may or may not be true).
There is generally no difference between energy that is electromagnetic and energy that is motion. The only difference is that electromagnetic energy is accounted for in a field, and energy that is in motion is accounted for by inertia. However, fields have inertia and inertia can be abstracted into a field.
You can turn motion energy into photon energy. Happens all the time simply with friction (turning into "heat"), although there are many other ways to do this...
The value of 'c' is one of the "constants" of the physics we use to describe the universe. There's nothing "magical" about the number, it is simply a constant of our current model of physics. In fact many physicists use a unit system where that constant is simply equal to '1' to simplify the equations.
The weird part is that it is also the speed of light in all reference frames. That is the "magic" about light and the structure of our universe, not the number 'c'... There are no known observations about the velocity of "light" or any other physical object that exceed this number. However, there have been some book-keeping particle (e.g., tachyons) that effectively have imaginary mass (technically space-like 4-momentum) and therefore cannot have a group velocity *slower* than 'c' (which doesn't mean the same thing as anything actually travelling faster than 'c').
As to the number of "forces", physicist have currently think of 3 (strong, electro-weak, and gravitation). Physicist have classified 4, but back in 1979, Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg won the Nobel prize because they were able to show that the electromagnetic and the weak-force were actually the same force above energies of 250 GeV. The Electromagnetic and weak-force only appear to act differently at the lower energies of our post-big-bang epochs. Because of the electro-weak unification, many physicists think that there is probably only one fundamental force and what we see are different manifestations of that force. They are searching for the grand-unification theory that combines all of these forces, but nobody has been successful at that yet.
As far as we know, attraction or repulsion requires different "charge" or "spin" or "color" quantities. Physicists have identified force carrying particles for the various fields and how they interact with these quantities. The electro-weak force is easier to identify the attraction/repulsion by bookkeeping the various charge, spin, hypercharge, or iso-spin, quantities. However, analogous attraction/repulsion due to the "color" strong force is currently unknown in this regard (because of confinement it doesn't appear really as a "distance" to attract or repel, but more of allowed state configuration). The gravitational force appears to mostly attractive at non-cosmological scales, but then again, we know so little about the universe (which currently needs some exotic dark energy to explain the current expansion rate) that it to
If Einstein didn't come up with it, someone else would have in the next 5 years. He wasn't working in a vacuum.
Actually there is considerable evidence that Hilbert was basically working on general relativity at the same time as Einstein and submitted an article for publication 5 *days* before Einstein's publication (although Hilbert needed to work out a few changes with the publisher in his result and his formulation wasn't published until 3 months later). There is an on-going dispute on who actually got the math right first for the correct field equations, although most agree that the foundational ideas/inspiration about Relativity were from Einstein...
The problem here is your math. Kepler orbits the L2 point *one* million miles from Earth.
Actually, Kepler isn't in an L2 orbit, I believe it is in a Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit...
This orbit is a little wider and slower than our own orbit, taking about 372 days. Each day Kepler falls a little farther behind Earth which orbits in 365 days. Every year it gets about 15 million miles farther away from Earth. After 9 years of operation, the gap will open to the current large distance (near 95M miles away)...
The reason a Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit was chosen for Kepler is that it takes less energy to reach that orbit than an L2 orbit allowing the Kepler mission to use a smaller (and cheaper) booster for the mission.
Well, your if you launched your 1966 beetle aboard a Delta II rocket, it might... Heck, I suspect that Elon's Tesla roadster will eventually beat that...
Hey, I've got an idea: It's in orbit around the SUN, FFS!
How about, um, SOLAR POWER?!?
It's got lots of solar power... it uses it to run the instrumentation.
But the fuel is for the thrusters to maintain its orbit and keep it aimed. At present, there is no technology to turn solar power into thrust in a spacecraft.
Jesus fuck but there's some clueless fucking people on Slashdot these days.
Depends on if you believe in the plausibility of EM drive technology or not;^) Maybe some day (although certainly not today)...
Every cell has differences in gene expression from another cell. So it's hard to say what they are talking about from a press release. But one assumes they are seeing large globally different changes of the kind one might call epi-gentic. If that's the case this is non trivial. It means he's living in a new equilibrium state of his gene expression. As an example, female and male alligators have identical genomes but their sex is determined epi-gentically by altering gene expression.
Although you are likely on to something when you say the changes were epi-genetic, there is growing evidence that this may be a common mechanism than initially thought.
Modern research has indicated that although DNA and histone methylation tend to be correlated with fairly long-term, stable conversion of gene expression (say like sex expression), demethylation can often occur on a much shorter term scale and in response to environmental factors. Not much is known about the demethylation process, but some speculate that DNA deaminases appear to be involved which can trigger DNA mismatch/repair mechanisms causing potential long lasting changes in DNA expression and maybe even coding (although only locally, of course).
Some folks are even thinking about DNA in chromosomes as being more dictionary than instructions. Of course instructions need to be of course encoded using words in a dictionary, but there are words in the dictionary that are nouns (e.g., coding for a specific useful coding) and some are verbs (e.g., coding for sequences) and some are adjectives/adverbs (e.g., modifying codes and changing sequences), and sections and cross-references and we have only just begun to understand the basic grammar and what part of the dictionary are actually instructions...
So all those stock options are going to be seized and used to compensate everyone who suffered as a result of the breach right?
Maybe?
Although it is traditional that all the money the SEC collects simply goes to the US treasury, it is also possible for the money to be used to re-imburse other investors (under the Fair Funds for Investors provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act).
Of course this provision has rarely been used and is of no benefit to those that suffered from the breach (it only applies to investors).
I wish they would bring back public stoning.
So what other parts of Sharia law are you in favor of?
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be a European resident to get one and you have to make a legal declaration of your place of residence before they'll issue a domain.
As I understand it, you can also register a .EU domain if you are also in Norway, Iceland, or Liechtenstein (which are not members of the EU, but are still party to the EEA). They do exclude Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, Turkey, and Vatican City from getting .EU domains presumably because they are not part of the EEA.
AFAIK, the UK hasn't yet dropped out of the EEA (apparently, to make it match up with the article 50 EU-brexit date, the UK has to invoke article 127 to give notice by March 29, or basically today).
Until the UK formally announces drops out of the EEA, this is really just petty posturing...
Have you ever even met somebody who is in business selling products?
Retail markup + box + packing + manuals + shrinkwrap + media (CD/DVD) + sales processing (credit card 2% tax) and finally marketing & product placement all take a sizable chunk out of a product's price. The general recommendation I've been told JUST for marketing overhead is 30% of the budget!
Now 30% might seem at the high end of the classic business model but it depends on the market. Apple wants to keep all the gains of going online for themselves rather than for the publishers (who often take an undo share while developers... like everywhere else the value creators often get the least in the chain of leeches.) The App store has a massive exposure with the promise to move much higher volume -- like how major brands PAY for shelf placement in the isles. Apple doesn't yet do a version of this but makes everybody pay more to be in the store.
I don't know if 30% is a good deal. It doesn't sound all that bad if you price accordingly and are clever in selling direct at a lower price-- where it is likely that the App store sales beat your own website... I've noticed more apps going on their store exclusively. They must have done the math for their situation.
Not to mention there are a LOT of FREE Apps on the App Store that Apple earns exactly ZERO percent on. That 30% from Paid Apps partially subsidizes the FREE Apps.
But no one ever stops to factor THAT in.
If it wasn't clear from my original post, my point was Apple charges 30% for In-app purchases...
Most of those "free" apps subsidize their development with in-app purchases of which Apple taxes those customers 30%.
Don't get me wrong, there's lots of good crippleware in the app stores, but everyone has mouths to feed so there must be some paying customers (or deep pocketed VCs)....
By locking their customers in a walled garden and charging outside companies 30% to sell things to those customers, they have little need to sell the information about their customers outside of their walled garden.
The other ecosystems don't charge 30% to outside companies and instead get them to pay them money for information about their customers...
Basically, Apple is making money taxing exchanges in eco-system where other eco-systems are relying on value-add sales...
You know, it's a corporation thing... The shareholders made me do it.
Since Zuck owns enough Facebook Class B shares** to give himself 60% of the voting rights in FB, I'm not sure that is the best argument for him to make...
**Facebook Class B shares have 10x the voting rights of Class A shares...
Solution: don't post illegal ads
Thank you for contacting Facebook(tm) Support. Have a nice day!
Facebook can gladly provide the names of the authors of those illegal ads. The parties that create those ads should be held liable.
Except for the small detail that the Fair Housing Act makes printing, making, or publishing such ads illegal. Not just making.
Of course there are some "safe-harbors" that publishers can attempt to use use.
All advertisements should have prominent display of equal housing opportunity logotype, statement, or slogan as a means of educating the homeseeking public that the property is available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Or perhaps include a statement with all advertising that states something like: All real estate advertised herein is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to advertise "any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." We will not knowingly accept any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law. All persons are hereby informed that all dwellings advertised are available on an equal opportunity basis.
On the other hand, potential evidence used against publishers are: selective availability of advertisements (this is what Facebook is doing); selective inclusion of equal housing opportunity statements or logos in different advertising campaigns; advertising with human models that cater to one segment of the population without complementary advertising in other segments.
Facebook's problem is that the tools they give to advertiser allow them to explicitly include/exclude certain groups of people when defining a target for their housing ads is basically the same as for any other ad. So by excluding people that have interests in certain areas (ethnic affinities, like Interest in Telemundo, or gender affinities, like women in technology) they can effectively hide the advertisements from people advertisers want to discriminate against. By providing these tools, they are basically accomplices in the violation of the Fair Housing Act, not a neutral party just providing an ad platform...
The article says that 75% of the land has lost at least one of its functions.
No, the report doesn't even say that. It says...
Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity.
The metric they are using is biodiversity and the assessment technique they are using estimates that most of the forcing function for a reduction in bio-diversity is human related climate change since the beginning of human existance (not actually direct human intervention) which is how they can presume impact for areas where humans have never visited (and get to 75%-90%)....
Consequently, if your metric is not biodiversity, or if your threshold is not "escaped substantial impact" since the beginning of human existence due to climate change or direct intervention, your mileage may vary...
At least he actually followed through and did what he promised
Did he? I don't believe it. Where's the proof that he launched? The article contained no pictures or videos. The evidence that he launched is far flimsier than the evidence that the Earth is a sphere so, by his own standards, we should simply refuse to believe that he did this and then, just perhaps, he might actually learn something valuable from this non-event.
FWIW, Matt Hartman (a well known AP news photographer) was apparently the "designated reputable witness" to the actual event. You can google it in a few places...
However, for more entertainment value, the production video is on Noize TV. Of course you might not be predisposed to believe the video, but apparently Matt was there, so there you have it...
Then again, with all the Fake News floating around in the inter-tubes, a healthy dose of skepticism is usually warranted. Of course many align our skepticism to those reflected by our respective echo chambers, but on occasion, we should open the door to our echo chambers to glimpse at the sky to align ourselves... On occasion...
Well, as far as we know...
Despite all talks of duplicate TNG/DS9 "rikers", it will be very difficult to destroy and replicate exactly someone using a "transporter" like device because of the No cloning theorm.
However, physics doesn't appear to preclude teleportation of some sort where the replication is dependent on the destruction. In fact people have been able to teleport quantum states of photons as far as a satellite in earth's orbit... Since photons are nominally the same except for their quantum state, that's basically teleportation.
Of course teleportation (in this quantum sense) requires pre-entangled objects to exist on both sides and merely theoretically allows...
1. an ingress device to destructively make classical measurements of quantum state of an original object in proximity of one of the pre-tangled objects,
2. take those classical measurements and communicate them to an egress device near the other pre-entangled object
3. an egress device is not longer prohibited from using the communicated measurements and the pre-entangled object to reconstruct the original quantum state in target object (which the act of which destroys the quantum state of the pre-entangled objects and overwrites the target object with the quantum state of the original object).
As you might imagine, this a whole lot easier, if the object to be teleported is a photon because we have relatively simple ways of generating pre-entangled photons, reasonably simply ingress devices to make measurements of quantum states of photons and actual egress devices to modify the quantum state of photons.
Beyond a photon, well, all this telportation stuff is currently very hard, but not yet proved theoretically impossible. ;^)
The concept of the ship of Theseus has been debated for ages.
On the flip side, people can certainly think of something that is actually "self" as "non-self". This ranges from auto-immune system struggles to Dissociative identity disorder to body integrity identity disorders...
And of course people have gone to sleep and waken up speaking with a different accent
The whole concept of "self" is a bit soft if you ask me...
There is no real "brine problem" with desalination. All of the salt in the brine was there originally. Desalination just temporarily separates the salt and the water, without changing the amount of either.
The "brine" problem is if you dump it back into the ocean, it takes more and more energy to desalinate. Eventually you can reach the point of "peak-salt". Usually it doesn't get to that, but it is a problem you often need to think about...
It's funny to me when somebody tells me to conserve water because of the water shortage in other countries. It's not like the water I save is going to be shipped to Africa, so, the only reason to conserve water is to save my money.
Of course water isn't going to be shipped to Africa, but potable water has a pretty high carbon footprint. Also if much of your local water comes from natural aquifers, reducing the amount of water pumped out by a community reduces the general risk of local subsidence/sinkholes/etc...
There are other reasons to use less water than to simply save money.
Once Tech solves the problem, the price will come down substantially.
Heck there are some very well known places that have fairly good DeSal plants supplying water already. There isn't a huge need (yet) therefore it is still expensive.
De-sal plants currently have two big flaws, you need to be near the ocean and you need to dump the brine somewhere. Okay, brine isn't high-level nuclear waste, but there's a lot more of it than high-level nuclear waste...
There's some folks working on making commercial chemical product like sodium bicarbonate calcium chloride from the brine which can finance the processing of the brine. However, right now, people are mostly just dumping the brine (back into the ocean making it locally saltier or into evaporation pools that contaminate the land).
Dismissed as bullshit alarmist crap
May be alarmist, but certainly the cracks in the water infrastructure of large cities are showing...
Melbourne, Australia
Mexico City, Mexico
Cape Town, South Africa
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Jakarta, Indonesia
Certainly, we aren't running out of fresh water as a species. However, the fresh water isn't where the people are, and the infrastructure planning to adjust for fluctuations in historical rainfall patterns is lagging greatly.
The problems are likely technically solvable, but may be so expensive that they will serve displace populations (negative growth in mega cities). I don't think 5B people will die of thirst by 2050, but I can certainly imagine that 5B people wouldn't live where they might have been if it weren't for water issues.
Some people say a coder is made outta mud
A poor coder's made outta hacking and fud
Hacking and fud and scripts and caffeine
A mind that's weak and a keyboard that's strong
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Google, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I wake up in a basement where the sun doesn't shine
I picked up my keyboard and walked in half past nine
I hacked sixteen slocs of fine gui code
And the manager said "well, bless my soul"
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Apple, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one morning', it was drizzlin' rain
Hacking and trouble are my middle name
I learned coding in a bootcamp from an ol' timer mom
Can't no high toned woman make me stand in a scrum
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Microsoft, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
If you see me debuggin', better step aside
A lotta devs didn't, a lotta devs cried
One window of logs, the other source hell
If the first doesn't find it, then the second one will
You code sixteen slocs, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Facebook, don't you fire me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to your company store
-- with apologies to Merle Travis
Please google for information about Carol Davidsen, director for media analytics for Obama's 2012 campaign and Ken Strasma, Targeting Director for the 2008 Obama and 2004 Kerry campaigns.
Apparently Christopher Wylie (the renegade from Cambridge in the crosshairs of facebook) learned the craft from about micro-targeting and data politics from Ken Strasma.
If you are search engine impaired, you can start here...
https://heavy.com/news/2018/03...
I think you may be confusing iterated game theory with single instance.
Behaviors like cooperation is likely only an emergent property of iterated or repeated game theory. (e.g., like that tit-for-tat iterated prisoner's dilemma). If players think it a single instance, (e.g, staying at a company for an average of 2 year w/ only annual raises), I suspect behavior for perceived on-offs reverts to the single instance case.
Lots of people don't vote because they simply don't care or can't be bothered, or fear they will lose the right to complain.
People litter generally because of the tragedy of the commons, but often don't because of fear of getting caught.
People often don't walk out on checks because of fear of getting caught.
People play the lottery for entertainment or FOMO (fear of missing out), people who use "math" don't play the lottery.
Fear is often a big motivator for behavior. Probably fear is a big contributor to"civil society" maybe even higher than self interest and has to be factored into any game theoretic payoff matrix. Since people have different fear levels, they have different payoff matrices and thus different behaviors. Certainly some other folks may have so-called "moral" scruples and of course that could be factored into the payoff matrix, but I suspect that is not a moral payoff, but simply a function of people attempting to play the "iterated" long-game (e.g., karma, purgatory, whatever), not part of a one-off interaction. Burn that person a few times and I suspect their "morals" would change meaning it is less part of their payoff matrix for the paycheck "doctor" interaction, but just part of their larger game (any chain of decisions generates the "moral" payoff, independent of the individual outcome of any of those decisions).
Some people might simply feel a pure strategy of "moral" selection has better long term fitness, whereas as evidence shows that in mixed environment you often need a more discerning strategy that involves some potentially "non-moral" behavior for better outcomes that depend on the payoff result. Unfortunately studies also show that discrimination is also an effective strategy for improving outcomes of some iterated games. Some may not consider that very moral behavior, but it sadly doesn't mean it isn't effective.
Maybe that's a shallow view of morals to reduce it to game theory, but I personally think morals are only part of the long-game behavior. Given the amount of people going to confessionals, or falling from the purer faith, but still attempting to be seen as mostly "moral", my conclusion is morals easily dismiss-able by many folks on convenience when they forget they are playing the long game and is only emergent, when not dependent on outcomes.
FYI: Magic Leap board members: Sundar Pichai (Google), Jack Ma (Alibaba), Paul Jacobs (Qualcomm)
Of course you have to remember, Magic Leap is not really a traditional tech company, it is a marketing company (actually more of an independent record label / AR content company) that stumbled upon some piezoelectric fiberoptic scanning technology (via Prof Eric Seibel UW) and is now attempting make it work using some kind of custom silicon photonics device. Their goal is to apparently license the resulting technology for use by content developers (part of their marketing company roots).
Your position is a key piece of information when negotiating, a piece that Americans almost never have because of this custom. The only reason you should WANT your salary to be a secret is that you think you make the most compared to your peers. That or tax evasion.
Your salary is never "secret". It is likely your boss and all the superiors up to the CEO and all the people in HR and payroll know your salary and besides it is reported to the IRS.
The question is simply if you want your salary generally known to your colleagues so it can be used for their advantage in negotiating their salary. This is a question that can be partly answered with game theory.
Unfortunately, game theory tells us that lying is dominate strategy. If others are honest, it makes sense to lie since you get the same benefit without any risk. And if others lie, you have nothing to gain and honesty comes with a risk. Therefore, everyone lies.
So rather than put every in the position of wanting to directly lie, out of politeness we offer everyone the opportunity for a passive lie of omission.
Mass and energy are basically the same thing when it comes to inertia/acceleration/gravity. You measure "mass-energy" and the quantity is conserved (mass doesn't disappear, it converts to energy, and vice-versa). What most folks think of as "build-up" of mass at high velocity is really just a build up in momentum/energy (mass and energy are the same and you can store energy in momentum, what people think of as E=mc^2 is more properly E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 + other energy terms, where p=momentum) and it is an artifact if you define mass of an object independent of velocity as simply as rest mass (e.g., ignore the pc term in energy). Also the so called conversion of mass-to-energy when an atom disassembles is mis-accounting of the binding energy of the atom. It is more correct to say mass-energy is conserved.
As to "why" mass-energy is a conserved quantity, that is a deeper question to which physics has not yet full answer, but conservation is a consequence of Noether's theorem under the assumption that the laws of physics don't change over time (which may or may not be true).
There is generally no difference between energy that is electromagnetic and energy that is motion. The only difference is that electromagnetic energy is accounted for in a field, and energy that is in motion is accounted for by inertia. However, fields have inertia and inertia can be abstracted into a field.
You can turn motion energy into photon energy. Happens all the time simply with friction (turning into "heat"), although there are many other ways to do this...
The value of 'c' is one of the "constants" of the physics we use to describe the universe. There's nothing "magical" about the number, it is simply a constant of our current model of physics. In fact many physicists use a unit system where that constant is simply equal to '1' to simplify the equations.
The weird part is that it is also the speed of light in all reference frames. That is the "magic" about light and the structure of our universe, not the number 'c'... There are no known observations about the velocity of "light" or any other physical object that exceed this number. However, there have been some book-keeping particle (e.g., tachyons) that effectively have imaginary mass (technically space-like 4-momentum) and therefore cannot have a group velocity *slower* than 'c' (which doesn't mean the same thing as anything actually travelling faster than 'c').
As to the number of "forces", physicist have currently think of 3 (strong, electro-weak, and gravitation). Physicist have classified 4, but back in 1979, Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg won the Nobel prize because they were able to show that the electromagnetic and the weak-force were actually the same force above energies of 250 GeV. The Electromagnetic and weak-force only appear to act differently at the lower energies of our post-big-bang epochs. Because of the electro-weak unification, many physicists think that there is probably only one fundamental force and what we see are different manifestations of that force. They are searching for the grand-unification theory that combines all of these forces, but nobody has been successful at that yet.
As far as we know, attraction or repulsion requires different "charge" or "spin" or "color" quantities. Physicists have identified force carrying particles for the various fields and how they interact with these quantities. The electro-weak force is easier to identify the attraction/repulsion by bookkeeping the various charge, spin, hypercharge, or iso-spin, quantities. However, analogous attraction/repulsion due to the "color" strong force is currently unknown in this regard (because of confinement it doesn't appear really as a "distance" to attract or repel, but more of allowed state configuration). The gravitational force appears to mostly attractive at non-cosmological scales, but then again, we know so little about the universe (which currently needs some exotic dark energy to explain the current expansion rate) that it to
If Einstein didn't come up with it, someone else would have in the next 5 years. He wasn't working in a vacuum.
Actually there is considerable evidence that Hilbert was basically working on general relativity at the same time as Einstein and submitted an article for publication 5 *days* before Einstein's publication (although Hilbert needed to work out a few changes with the publisher in his result and his formulation wasn't published until 3 months later). There is an on-going dispute on who actually got the math right first for the correct field equations, although most agree that the foundational ideas/inspiration about Relativity were from Einstein...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem here is your math. Kepler orbits the L2 point *one* million miles from Earth.
Actually, Kepler isn't in an L2 orbit, I believe it is in a Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit...
This orbit is a little wider and slower than our own orbit, taking about 372 days. Each day Kepler falls a little farther behind Earth which orbits in 365 days. Every year it gets about 15 million miles farther away from Earth. After 9 years of operation, the gap will open to the current large distance (near 95M miles away)...
The reason a Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit was chosen for Kepler is that it takes less energy to reach that orbit than an L2 orbit allowing the Kepler mission to use a smaller (and cheaper) booster for the mission.
Dang I wish my 1966 beetle got anything like that
Well, your if you launched your 1966 beetle aboard a Delta II rocket, it might...
Heck, I suspect that Elon's Tesla roadster will eventually beat that...
It's got lots of solar power ... it uses it to run the instrumentation.
But the fuel is for the thrusters to maintain its orbit and keep it aimed. At present, there is no technology to turn solar power into thrust in a spacecraft.
Jesus fuck but there's some clueless fucking people on Slashdot these days.
Depends on if you believe in the plausibility of EM drive technology or not ;^)
Maybe some day (although certainly not today)...
Every cell has differences in gene expression from another cell. So it's hard to say what they are talking about from a press release. But one assumes they are seeing large globally different changes of the kind one might call epi-gentic. If that's the case this is non trivial. It means he's living in a new equilibrium state of his gene expression. As an example, female and male alligators have identical genomes but their sex is determined epi-gentically by altering gene expression.
Although you are likely on to something when you say the changes were epi-genetic, there is growing evidence that this may be a common mechanism than initially thought.
Modern research has indicated that although DNA and histone methylation tend to be correlated with fairly long-term, stable conversion of gene expression (say like sex expression), demethylation can often occur on a much shorter term scale and in response to environmental factors. Not much is known about the demethylation process, but some speculate that DNA deaminases appear to be involved which can trigger DNA mismatch/repair mechanisms causing potential long lasting changes in DNA expression and maybe even coding (although only locally, of course).
Some folks are even thinking about DNA in chromosomes as being more dictionary than instructions. Of course instructions need to be of course encoded using words in a dictionary, but there are words in the dictionary that are nouns (e.g., coding for a specific useful coding) and some are verbs (e.g., coding for sequences) and some are adjectives/adverbs (e.g., modifying codes and changing sequences), and sections and cross-references and we have only just begun to understand the basic grammar and what part of the dictionary are actually instructions...
So all those stock options are going to be seized and used to compensate everyone who suffered as a result of the breach right?
Maybe?
Although it is traditional that all the money the SEC collects simply goes to the US treasury, it is also possible for the money to be used to re-imburse other investors (under the Fair Funds for Investors provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act).
Of course this provision has rarely been used and is of no benefit to those that suffered from the breach (it only applies to investors).
I wish they would bring back public stoning.
So what other parts of Sharia law are you in favor of?