Obama likes it because they put off paying for Obamacare another couple of years. The taxes on health insurance and medical equipment will be delayed until after the election and 2020, respectively.
O has done a masterful job at delaying the biggest cost impacts.
Except that Uber can hold all the cards, "Feel free to work elsewhere, oh wait there is no elsewhere".
There might be an "elsewhere" soon enough if Uber's prices keep rising, which is now more likely a labor demands higher compensation. Non-unionized competitors should be allowed to co-exist if they can.
I can't tell if she's saying the streams have different priorities or if they should be compressed with different codecs.
It seems both. I'd say the best way to save bandwidth is to reduce the popular titles first. All the latest compression technologies can't reduce the existing bandwidth used for watching Vanilla Sky.
If one looks deeper, they'll find that this is really a zoning decision and has nothing to do with fear of solar. The town already has approved other solar farms which are actively being built, but they don't want another one in this particular area. The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise.
And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.
Most solar panels, even those not connected, have a security flaw. Its called the 'tossed brick' vulnerability. Its hard to believe they have ignored this threat for so long.
"Maybe it will take an actual exploit and burglary to change things."
Do you actually believe that non of these vulnerabilities have been exploited in the wild? Seriously? Because I assure you that there have been plenty of actual exploit and burglaries.
Please provide some examples. I have doubts about your "assurance". Just one resl report would siffice.
1. Find someone with enough stuff that they feel like they need an alarm system.
2. Find someone stupid enough to buy a hackable alarm system that's part of the IoT.
3. Jackpot!
Maybe it will take an actual exploit and burglary to change things. But apparently, despite all the talk about how easy it is, that has not yet happened. Hackers tend to have an aversion to physically showing up at their targets.
As if the co-pilot couldn't have made the exact same mistake with a calculator or even paper.
The error could have happened regardless of the calculation tool as long as a human is entering the data. Inadequate verification of the information used seems to be at the heart of allowing the error to go unnoticed.
What does technology choice matter when we (in the US) propose to only cut CO2 to 2005 levels by 2030? And we can't even agree on that. We will have to get very aggressive with every technology and efficiency improvement available, and many countries won't have the resources to help much.
Yes, they found more cancers than they expected on the first screening pass. But the tumor sizes in those cases generally showed that they must have started before the accident, and the frequency within the population did not correlate at all with the exposure profile. So it was quite clear that something else is the cause of these initial high numbers.
They are careful, as they should be, to not draw any conclusions as to how many cancers may eventually arise due to Fukushima radiation or any other cause. That will come with more screening data over the long term. It is interesting to note that there were relatively few additional cancers found on subsequent screening passes.
Its refreshing when you get an article that has a clear professional explanation, and only speaks to the data at hand.
I made a mistake in the numbers above. My apologies, here is corrected information, please ignore above.
The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers.
Here is a corrected comparison just using the worker population
Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80
UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16
The term 'enough exposure' is meaningless in this context. At low doses of the amount the workers have been exposed, the increase in risk is so small that we don't expect to statistically be able to see it. That does not mean there will be zero cancers, and nobody is claiming that. But there certainly will not be many additional cancers.
As for this particular study, they know the tumors found in the first screenings are not due to Fukushima because they know the size and growth rate of tumors, and can use that established medical knowledge to understand that they had to have started forming before the accident. That is pretty straightforward, and it certainly doesn't deny that eventually a cancer may be caused by irradiation from Fukushima. Nobody ever claimed that.
The problem remains that while we assume there can be low dose impacts, it is very hard to study because the increase in risk is so low, and there is are so many variables that make it hard to have a big enough study and control group that eliminate other factors. People that get CT scans are already in a different group than the normal population, as they already have some health problem. It is very hard to reconcile these factors.
I am OK with the LNT model as long as it is used properly. It is conservative and we should certainly be conservative when it comes to radiation exposure. But when using it for predictions, the uncertainties need to be considered.
Now you are denying that contamination can be monitored, and need me to provide proof? Please. I suppose you might deny the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Do I need to provide proof of that?
My points are based on real world data, not just fear factor, accusations of cover ups, and scary words. Here are some real world results that you will find hard to digest, and back up my points about conservatism in the models.
He was the one who purposely published a 'study' that misused this data, and resulted in many news articles recently about a huge increase in Thyroid Cancers. I am sure you saw them, they were discussed here as well, and I said then his story was bunk but many here defended him.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama likes it because they put off paying for Obamacare another couple of years. The taxes on health insurance and medical equipment will be delayed until after the election and 2020, respectively.
O has done a masterful job at delaying the biggest cost impacts.
Except that Uber can hold all the cards, "Feel free to work elsewhere, oh wait there is no elsewhere".
There might be an "elsewhere" soon enough if Uber's prices keep rising, which is now more likely a labor demands higher compensation. Non-unionized competitors should be allowed to co-exist if they can.
I can't tell if she's saying the streams have different priorities or if they should be compressed with different codecs.
It seems both. I'd say the best way to save bandwidth is to reduce the popular titles first. All the latest compression technologies can't reduce the existing bandwidth used for watching Vanilla Sky.
So basically they want to be Keurig 2.0 ...
No worries, the hack will come along soon enough.......just cut the green wire.
If one looks deeper, they'll find that this is really a zoning decision and has nothing to do with fear of solar. The town already has approved other solar farms which are actively being built, but they don't want another one in this particular area. The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise.
And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.
Most solar panels, even those not connected, have a security flaw. Its called the 'tossed brick' vulnerability. Its hard to believe they have ignored this threat for so long.
I see. It is your opinion that it is happening, with no evidence to support. Thanks.
Do you actually believe that non of these vulnerabilities have been exploited in the wild? Seriously? Because I assure you that there have been plenty of actual exploit and burglaries.
Please provide some examples. I have doubts about your "assurance". Just one resl report would siffice.
1. Find someone with enough stuff that they feel like they need an alarm system. 2. Find someone stupid enough to buy a hackable alarm system that's part of the IoT. 3. Jackpot!
Maybe it will take an actual exploit and burglary to change things. But apparently, despite all the talk about how easy it is, that has not yet happened. Hackers tend to have an aversion to physically showing up at their targets.
Some of those figures reveal a low sample rate, would be nice to see how many actual units were returned as well.
Yeah, 20.00% tells me that most likely only 5 or 10 units were sold. Too small a sample size to tell us much of anything.
Maybe we really don't need to retain all of this information.
As if the co-pilot couldn't have made the exact same mistake with a calculator or even paper.
The error could have happened regardless of the calculation tool as long as a human is entering the data. Inadequate verification of the information used seems to be at the heart of allowing the error to go unnoticed.
If broadband is a right, then would not data caps be considered limiting a person's rights? Unlimited access for all.
3D Fish Tank decor
http://3dprint.com/61418/3d-pr...
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...
2419, isn't that the 24 1/2 century?
They should do Chuck Rogers. Starring Mr. Norris of course.
The EU also cheats the most on broadband emissions testing.
What does technology choice matter when we (in the US) propose to only cut CO2 to 2005 levels by 2030? And we can't even agree on that. We will have to get very aggressive with every technology and efficiency improvement available, and many countries won't have the resources to help much.
http://www.denverpost.com/news...
You have correlation :)
Yes, they found more cancers than they expected on the first screening pass. But the tumor sizes in those cases generally showed that they must have started before the accident, and the frequency within the population did not correlate at all with the exposure profile. So it was quite clear that something else is the cause of these initial high numbers.
They are careful, as they should be, to not draw any conclusions as to how many cancers may eventually arise due to Fukushima radiation or any other cause. That will come with more screening data over the long term. It is interesting to note that there were relatively few additional cancers found on subsequent screening passes.
Its refreshing when you get an article that has a clear professional explanation, and only speaks to the data at hand.
I made a mistake in the numbers above. My apologies, here is corrected information, please ignore above.
The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers.
Here is a corrected comparison just using the worker population
Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80
UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16
The term 'enough exposure' is meaningless in this context. At low doses of the amount the workers have been exposed, the increase in risk is so small that we don't expect to statistically be able to see it. That does not mean there will be zero cancers, and nobody is claiming that. But there certainly will not be many additional cancers.
As for this particular study, they know the tumors found in the first screenings are not due to Fukushima because they know the size and growth rate of tumors, and can use that established medical knowledge to understand that they had to have started forming before the accident. That is pretty straightforward, and it certainly doesn't deny that eventually a cancer may be caused by irradiation from Fukushima. Nobody ever claimed that.
The problem remains that while we assume there can be low dose impacts, it is very hard to study because the increase in risk is so low, and there is are so many variables that make it hard to have a big enough study and control group that eliminate other factors. People that get CT scans are already in a different group than the normal population, as they already have some health problem. It is very hard to reconcile these factors.
I am OK with the LNT model as long as it is used properly. It is conservative and we should certainly be conservative when it comes to radiation exposure. But when using it for predictions, the uncertainties need to be considered.
Now you are denying that contamination can be monitored, and need me to provide proof? Please. I suppose you might deny the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Do I need to provide proof of that?
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
My points are based on real world data, not just fear factor, accusations of cover ups, and scary words. Here are some real world results that you will find hard to digest, and back up my points about conservatism in the models.
Chernobyl Cancer Study Harvard 2005: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
Predicted number of Leukemia cases (above normal) up to 2005 = 940
From 2012 study: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/12049...
Actual number of Leukemia cases as of 2012 = 136
He was the one who purposely published a 'study' that misused this data, and resulted in many news articles recently about a huge increase in Thyroid Cancers. I am sure you saw them, they were discussed here as well, and I said then his story was bunk but many here defended him.