And I was replying to your blanket statement. When people talk about "private flight" in this context, they are talking about it as a rich person's alternative to flying commercial. My point is that owning a Cessna is not an alternative to flying commercial, but a completely separate hobby.
A Cessna 182/172 is in no way comparable to private jet ownership. It's not really a good option for any flight longer than about 500 miles, and your cruise speed is often only around 100mph (ground speed)- meaning a flight that would be two hours in a jet is an all-day affair. On top of that, you are grounded or diverted by weather that a jet piloted by a professional wouldn't even flinch for. In reality, most of the people who own light Cessnas (or more commonly, fractional ownership) use them to putter around on Sunday afternoons or for short trips to nearby cities.
The brain drain from the main cable channels is kind of amazing. Discovery went from serious science documentaries to endless loops of shark attacks. TLC went from educational content to vapid reality TV. A&E went from broadcasting operas to vapid reality TV. History went from serious history documentaries to "When Aliens Attack Part VIII!" CNN Headline went from a short form summary of the top headlines to murder mysteries. The main 24/7 cable news channels have lost all semblance of journalistic integrity. No wonder all the commercials are targeted at the 65+ crowd. There's essentially nothing on broadcast TV left worth watching unless you are a sports fan.
The big difference is that the early explorers were reaching a place that was roughly equivalent in terms of habitability to the place they left. Even if they didn't necessarily know what they would find, they proceeded under the assumption that they were exploring new land that would be as good or better than what they left. The trip would be more equivalent if Leif Erikson had advance knowledge that the entire American continent is an uninhabitable ice sheet but decided to sail to the new world anyways.
Legal issues aside, if she was aware of the operator's location, it was a dick move to destroy the drone without simply talking to the operator first. Half the drones I see are being operated by kids with their parents standing by as a fun hobby. There's not always nearby or sufficient public land for the activity, and it's normal to want to try out new flying locations. If she had a problem with operating a drone in the area, she could have told them so. 99% of drone operators are going to comply in that sort of situation. If they were rude after being asked to leave, then I can see justification for shooting the drone down.
Congratulations. You've finally done it. You've made the post that will convince everybody to change sides in the election! Someone nominate this person for the Presidential Medal of Freedom!
In a perfect world where everyone has a photographic memory, we would change all of our passwords ever 30 days and be better for it. In the real world, people are often tasked with remembering the passwords for dozens of accounts with different password policies, different change policies, and differing security needs. This causes frequent forgotten passwords (leading to overuse of password recovery tools, easy to guess passwords, and password reuse.
In theory, you could simply use good mnemonic devices for passwords (see XKCD example), but in practice this is often thwarted by differing password policies. One requires special characters, the other prohibits. One has a maximum of 10 characters, the other 100. One requires caps, the other isn't case sensitive. As a result of these passwords, I've often ended up in "vicious cycles" for infrequently used accounts. I can't remember my password because I only log in every few months, so I have to reset the password. I can't remember the password the next time because I'm always having to reset it.
Bottom line: we need something better. The current state of passwords can be bewildering for a techie, and fatal to technology use for the non-technically inclined. With the proliferation of the cloud and other online services, It's gotten to the point that every single time I try to help my mom or other layperson with something on the computer, it's nothing but a battle of trying to remember to passwords.
Simple answer: I don't, I probably can't and it probably doesn't matter. I suppose I'm a bit fatalistic about it at this point, but my credit/debit cards have been subject to fraud on pretty much an annual basis for the last decade. The card company indemnifies me, and all that I lose is half an hour of my time calling in the fraud.
If this is a true story, can't we have a link to a better source than RT, which is known to push conspiracy theories? In any event, if this story is true, I get the distinct impression that Assange doesn't have a clear idea of what U.S. laws actually prohibit.
It's more than I expected (I was guessing ~$400), but I can't say that I am all that surprised or outraged. For a long time, the Oculus folks insisted that they were going to focus on making it good, not making it affordable. This makes sense, because VR technology has been around for decades, but nobody has really managed to make a GOOD VR set prior to the Oculus. Assuming the consumer version is in fact good, they can then focus on making it affordable. If you want affordable, there's always the cardboard VR sets to play with.
If they manage to succeed with making a good set, then VR will start to catch on and prices will fall for other good sets. I wouldn't be surprised if Oculus eventually releases different models to fulfill low and high end price points.
I also don't understand the outrage over the PC specs. The fact of the matter is that based on years of testing, it was determined that you really needed high resolution (i.e. 4k) to get rid of the screen door effect that has always been the bane of VR implementations. I wouldn't be surprised if 8k will be needed to really get rid of it. That takes a lot of computing horsepower and there just isn't any way around it.
It's true that this can happen, but well-designed IQ tests try to avoid questions dependent on any specific cultural context, or don't score based on the answer itself, but how the answer is thought through.
A properly scored IQ test that did ask "what are the four seasons?" could actually give full credit to a response that involved hunting seasons. In that case, the person administering the test would be looking for whether the child understood why there were different hunting seasons and what that implied. If the child answered spring/summer/winter/fall, they would be looking for an understanding of what was happening when the seasons were changing.
The kid identified in the article demonstrated the issue well. His dad was working while going to school and didn't realize his kid was even being tested until right before it happened. A parent of higher socioeconomic status probably would have been asking about gifted testing before the kid was even signed up for Kindergarten. It's not that the dad didn't care, he probably just didn't know to ask.
To add to my prior post. Without wading too much into racial politics, I think the whiteness of the program is mostly because white residents tend to have the cultural and political capital, not because anybody is trying to discriminate against non-white kids.
I attended elementary school in HISD and middle/high in SBISD. The article doesn't quite get to the root of the issue. The issue is that the programs tend to be targeted towards long time residents with a lot of cultural and political capital. These are the people that can make or break the career of a school administrator, so they get deference. This can happen because information about the programs are not publicized much. It's also expensive to run GT programs and the system doesn't want too many kids qualifying. As a result, the kids who end up in GT programs are those whose parents know all about the program (from knowing other parents with kids in the program) and have the wherewithal to lobby teachers to recommend their kids for testing and advocate that the kid get put in the appropriate program.
To illustrate how this works: my parents were not from Houston, but settled in the town shortly before I was born. They knew to get me tested, and I scored at a level that qualified me for any of HISD's gifted programs. However, what my parents were not told (and what could not easily be found out in a pre-internet age), was that there were actually multiple levels of gifted program. While I qualified for the higher tier program, nobody told my parents about it, and I ended up in the lower-tier program by default. My local school wanted it that way because I was a guaranteed pass on state standardized tests and the higher-tier program would have involved a transfer to a gifted magnet school. By the time my parents figured it out, we were moving to a nearby district that had a completely different system.
As far as the test being biased, it may be, but only to the extent IQ tests are biased. As far as I know, they are still using a version of an IQ test for selection, with certain additional diversity points available for kids on the margin. For a young child, providing some familiarity with the test could be helpful, so there's probably some benefit to savvy parents prepping. But I doubt any tweaks to testing procedures would make up for the cultural capital factor.
It's a little different in a real job, however. In a real job (at least at a reasonably well run organization), there is an established hierarchy (you know who is supposed to be in charge), and there are established roles (you know what you are supposed to be doing). In a class assignment, they throw 4 random kids into a group and leave them to figure everything out. In practice, it usually ends up being one smart/motivated kid doing everything while all the other kids socialize. The only thing in common is it teaches the kids doing nothing how to take credit for someone else's work.
While I love the romantic notion of space faring being the next logical step for humanity, I'm afraid we are nowhere close to where we need to be technologically. When it comes to space travel, we aren't 15th century Europeans with big sailing ships, we are the native Americans with dugout canoes. While it's technically possible to cross the Atlantic with a dugout canoe, actually attempting such a voyage would be close to suicidal, and could never become sufficiently routine to establish a viable colony. Likewise, inter-planetary travel with chemical rockets will never become sufficiently routine to establish a colony. Even after 80 years of liquid fuel rockets, the failure rate causes accidents to be almost routine. The costs are still astronomical and will always be due to the physical limitations of liquid rocket fuel (i.e. the tyranny of the rocket equation). Instead of dreaming about trying to go to Mars in our dugout canoes, we need to be figuring out sailing ships. That means a non-chemical rocket method of getting to space (space elevator?) and perfecting non-chemical rocket interplanetary propulsion.
I've been pulled over twice in the last 10 years on a bicycle. I have not been pulled over in my cars in the same period (two very attention grabbing sports cars), and a drive a lot more miles than I bike. Sure, it's just anecdotes, but much of the assumption that there is no enforcement of bicycle violations is just that- an assumption.
So how do I let them know they are in the wrong? Yell after them as they speed away? They are just going to give me the finger and continue doing what they are doing. Also, there is very little traffic policing in my city. Unless you are outside the city limits in state highway patrol territory, the chances of getting pulled over for a traffic violation are incredibly small. Am I supposed to shout at every asshat driver I see too?
I don't understand calls for the cyclist community to "self police." What exactly do you expect me as a cyclist to do if I see another cyclist breaking the law? Try to pull him over? Do you attempt to police drivers who break the law?
My company distributed Fitbits to every employee. Was kind of worthless for me as my two main forms of exercise are cycling and weight lifting- neither were really tracked by the fitbit. I lost it after a few weeks. Fortunately, there was no actual monitoring of our use.
I preface this by saying none of the following excuses the conduct, but I do think many of the accounts leave out some of the context behind the punch. Clarkson was going through a divorce and had just been told he had cancer. The day of filming had not gone well, he was tired, and drunk. He profusely apologized in the morning and went to the BBC himself to confess. He did something wrong, he made a mistake, but the reports make it sound like it happened because he was a terrible human being rather than a decent one with some flaws.
I think the end result of the fracas will actually be a win all around. The trio will be forced to get out of the rut they had been in. BBC gets out of a show they were never really comfortable hosting. Those that never liked TG no longer have it shown over the airwaves. U.S. fans no longer have to pony up for BBC America or resort to torrenting the show. Amazon gets a nice crown jewel for Prime streaming.
Slashdot Mirror
And I was replying to your blanket statement. When people talk about "private flight" in this context, they are talking about it as a rich person's alternative to flying commercial. My point is that owning a Cessna is not an alternative to flying commercial, but a completely separate hobby.
A Cessna 182/172 is in no way comparable to private jet ownership. It's not really a good option for any flight longer than about 500 miles, and your cruise speed is often only around 100mph (ground speed)- meaning a flight that would be two hours in a jet is an all-day affair. On top of that, you are grounded or diverted by weather that a jet piloted by a professional wouldn't even flinch for. In reality, most of the people who own light Cessnas (or more commonly, fractional ownership) use them to putter around on Sunday afternoons or for short trips to nearby cities.
The brain drain from the main cable channels is kind of amazing. Discovery went from serious science documentaries to endless loops of shark attacks. TLC went from educational content to vapid reality TV. A&E went from broadcasting operas to vapid reality TV. History went from serious history documentaries to "When Aliens Attack Part VIII!" CNN Headline went from a short form summary of the top headlines to murder mysteries. The main 24/7 cable news channels have lost all semblance of journalistic integrity. No wonder all the commercials are targeted at the 65+ crowd. There's essentially nothing on broadcast TV left worth watching unless you are a sports fan.
The big difference is that the early explorers were reaching a place that was roughly equivalent in terms of habitability to the place they left. Even if they didn't necessarily know what they would find, they proceeded under the assumption that they were exploring new land that would be as good or better than what they left. The trip would be more equivalent if Leif Erikson had advance knowledge that the entire American continent is an uninhabitable ice sheet but decided to sail to the new world anyways.
Sure. But one persons's discourtesy is not automatic license to escalate the situation.
And many people who are familiar with the gospels don't understand that much of what Jesus said was not intended to be taken literally.
Legal issues aside, if she was aware of the operator's location, it was a dick move to destroy the drone without simply talking to the operator first. Half the drones I see are being operated by kids with their parents standing by as a fun hobby. There's not always nearby or sufficient public land for the activity, and it's normal to want to try out new flying locations. If she had a problem with operating a drone in the area, she could have told them so. 99% of drone operators are going to comply in that sort of situation. If they were rude after being asked to leave, then I can see justification for shooting the drone down.
Congratulations. You've finally done it. You've made the post that will convince everybody to change sides in the election! Someone nominate this person for the Presidential Medal of Freedom!
Yes, people do want control of the kind of ads they see. For me, that kind is none at all.
In a perfect world where everyone has a photographic memory, we would change all of our passwords ever 30 days and be better for it. In the real world, people are often tasked with remembering the passwords for dozens of accounts with different password policies, different change policies, and differing security needs. This causes frequent forgotten passwords (leading to overuse of password recovery tools, easy to guess passwords, and password reuse.
In theory, you could simply use good mnemonic devices for passwords (see XKCD example), but in practice this is often thwarted by differing password policies. One requires special characters, the other prohibits. One has a maximum of 10 characters, the other 100. One requires caps, the other isn't case sensitive. As a result of these passwords, I've often ended up in "vicious cycles" for infrequently used accounts. I can't remember my password because I only log in every few months, so I have to reset the password. I can't remember the password the next time because I'm always having to reset it.
Bottom line: we need something better. The current state of passwords can be bewildering for a techie, and fatal to technology use for the non-technically inclined. With the proliferation of the cloud and other online services, It's gotten to the point that every single time I try to help my mom or other layperson with something on the computer, it's nothing but a battle of trying to remember to passwords.
Simple answer: I don't, I probably can't and it probably doesn't matter. I suppose I'm a bit fatalistic about it at this point, but my credit/debit cards have been subject to fraud on pretty much an annual basis for the last decade. The card company indemnifies me, and all that I lose is half an hour of my time calling in the fraud.
If this is a true story, can't we have a link to a better source than RT, which is known to push conspiracy theories? In any event, if this story is true, I get the distinct impression that Assange doesn't have a clear idea of what U.S. laws actually prohibit.
It's more than I expected (I was guessing ~$400), but I can't say that I am all that surprised or outraged. For a long time, the Oculus folks insisted that they were going to focus on making it good, not making it affordable. This makes sense, because VR technology has been around for decades, but nobody has really managed to make a GOOD VR set prior to the Oculus. Assuming the consumer version is in fact good, they can then focus on making it affordable. If you want affordable, there's always the cardboard VR sets to play with.
If they manage to succeed with making a good set, then VR will start to catch on and prices will fall for other good sets. I wouldn't be surprised if Oculus eventually releases different models to fulfill low and high end price points.
I also don't understand the outrage over the PC specs. The fact of the matter is that based on years of testing, it was determined that you really needed high resolution (i.e. 4k) to get rid of the screen door effect that has always been the bane of VR implementations. I wouldn't be surprised if 8k will be needed to really get rid of it. That takes a lot of computing horsepower and there just isn't any way around it.
I don't think it's better at all. But you can't address the problem appropriately if you don't understand it.
It's true that this can happen, but well-designed IQ tests try to avoid questions dependent on any specific cultural context, or don't score based on the answer itself, but how the answer is thought through.
A properly scored IQ test that did ask "what are the four seasons?" could actually give full credit to a response that involved hunting seasons. In that case, the person administering the test would be looking for whether the child understood why there were different hunting seasons and what that implied. If the child answered spring/summer/winter/fall, they would be looking for an understanding of what was happening when the seasons were changing.
The kid identified in the article demonstrated the issue well. His dad was working while going to school and didn't realize his kid was even being tested until right before it happened. A parent of higher socioeconomic status probably would have been asking about gifted testing before the kid was even signed up for Kindergarten. It's not that the dad didn't care, he probably just didn't know to ask.
To add to my prior post. Without wading too much into racial politics, I think the whiteness of the program is mostly because white residents tend to have the cultural and political capital, not because anybody is trying to discriminate against non-white kids.
I attended elementary school in HISD and middle/high in SBISD. The article doesn't quite get to the root of the issue. The issue is that the programs tend to be targeted towards long time residents with a lot of cultural and political capital. These are the people that can make or break the career of a school administrator, so they get deference. This can happen because information about the programs are not publicized much. It's also expensive to run GT programs and the system doesn't want too many kids qualifying. As a result, the kids who end up in GT programs are those whose parents know all about the program (from knowing other parents with kids in the program) and have the wherewithal to lobby teachers to recommend their kids for testing and advocate that the kid get put in the appropriate program.
To illustrate how this works: my parents were not from Houston, but settled in the town shortly before I was born. They knew to get me tested, and I scored at a level that qualified me for any of HISD's gifted programs. However, what my parents were not told (and what could not easily be found out in a pre-internet age), was that there were actually multiple levels of gifted program. While I qualified for the higher tier program, nobody told my parents about it, and I ended up in the lower-tier program by default. My local school wanted it that way because I was a guaranteed pass on state standardized tests and the higher-tier program would have involved a transfer to a gifted magnet school. By the time my parents figured it out, we were moving to a nearby district that had a completely different system.
As far as the test being biased, it may be, but only to the extent IQ tests are biased. As far as I know, they are still using a version of an IQ test for selection, with certain additional diversity points available for kids on the margin. For a young child, providing some familiarity with the test could be helpful, so there's probably some benefit to savvy parents prepping. But I doubt any tweaks to testing procedures would make up for the cultural capital factor.
It's a little different in a real job, however. In a real job (at least at a reasonably well run organization), there is an established hierarchy (you know who is supposed to be in charge), and there are established roles (you know what you are supposed to be doing). In a class assignment, they throw 4 random kids into a group and leave them to figure everything out. In practice, it usually ends up being one smart/motivated kid doing everything while all the other kids socialize. The only thing in common is it teaches the kids doing nothing how to take credit for someone else's work.
While I love the romantic notion of space faring being the next logical step for humanity, I'm afraid we are nowhere close to where we need to be technologically. When it comes to space travel, we aren't 15th century Europeans with big sailing ships, we are the native Americans with dugout canoes. While it's technically possible to cross the Atlantic with a dugout canoe, actually attempting such a voyage would be close to suicidal, and could never become sufficiently routine to establish a viable colony. Likewise, inter-planetary travel with chemical rockets will never become sufficiently routine to establish a colony. Even after 80 years of liquid fuel rockets, the failure rate causes accidents to be almost routine. The costs are still astronomical and will always be due to the physical limitations of liquid rocket fuel (i.e. the tyranny of the rocket equation). Instead of dreaming about trying to go to Mars in our dugout canoes, we need to be figuring out sailing ships. That means a non-chemical rocket method of getting to space (space elevator?) and perfecting non-chemical rocket interplanetary propulsion.
I've been pulled over twice in the last 10 years on a bicycle. I have not been pulled over in my cars in the same period (two very attention grabbing sports cars), and a drive a lot more miles than I bike. Sure, it's just anecdotes, but much of the assumption that there is no enforcement of bicycle violations is just that- an assumption.
So how do I let them know they are in the wrong? Yell after them as they speed away? They are just going to give me the finger and continue doing what they are doing. Also, there is very little traffic policing in my city. Unless you are outside the city limits in state highway patrol territory, the chances of getting pulled over for a traffic violation are incredibly small. Am I supposed to shout at every asshat driver I see too?
I don't understand calls for the cyclist community to "self police." What exactly do you expect me as a cyclist to do if I see another cyclist breaking the law? Try to pull him over? Do you attempt to police drivers who break the law?
My company distributed Fitbits to every employee. Was kind of worthless for me as my two main forms of exercise are cycling and weight lifting- neither were really tracked by the fitbit. I lost it after a few weeks. Fortunately, there was no actual monitoring of our use.
I preface this by saying none of the following excuses the conduct, but I do think many of the accounts leave out some of the context behind the punch. Clarkson was going through a divorce and had just been told he had cancer. The day of filming had not gone well, he was tired, and drunk. He profusely apologized in the morning and went to the BBC himself to confess. He did something wrong, he made a mistake, but the reports make it sound like it happened because he was a terrible human being rather than a decent one with some flaws.
I think the end result of the fracas will actually be a win all around. The trio will be forced to get out of the rut they had been in. BBC gets out of a show they were never really comfortable hosting. Those that never liked TG no longer have it shown over the airwaves. U.S. fans no longer have to pony up for BBC America or resort to torrenting the show. Amazon gets a nice crown jewel for Prime streaming.