It's only possible when you have a representative sample. If you have a systemic bias in your sample then there is nothing you can do to correct this, and your extrapolation is going to be invalid. An example could be trying to estimate household income by a telephone income. Those on a low income are less likely to have a telephone, and therefore you estimate the average income too high. In this case, those who know their computers are being monitored may choose to not do things which people who are not being monitored may choose to do.
For you to know that this is due to the test structure, you'd have to know how many people would have difficultly with other formats. With around 10% of adults in the USA having some level of illitercy, I'm not sure what test could achive closer to 100%
It imposes limits on the liberties of everyone other than the creator/rights holder, in order to protect that individual's rights.
Except
Almost certainly, it's not the individuals who are gaining, but the corporations.
That's not the purpose of copyright & patents according to the consitution. The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, which copyright & patents are now going against.
No, double-blind means that they don't know which items are being tested. It's perfectly ok for them to know the purpose of the testing. If you know that can A contains coke, and can B contains pepsi, then you can use your biases to choose can A over B. On the other hand, if you don't know which one is which, then you can't.
The direction of a flare is determined by the direction that the portion of the sun is pointing at when it's released. That's not going to be the closest point to the Earth, because the Earth has to go around in it's orbit for a couple of days before the flare hits us.
Usually, yes, but the judge can order that the transcript is sealed, almost always at the request of one or the other side. Claiming that the transcript contains trade secrets or other information that should not be distributed is a reason why they would do so.
No, since 1976 in the US, and years beforehand in the civalized parts of the world, any work which involves substantial creative effort is born copyrighted.
It's transmitted encrypted. It used to be almost always DES, which obviously caused a few problems over the years, but this story gives some details. Newer machines use AES, which avoids those problems.
Whenever you sample a population, there is a possibility of the sample being non-representative of the population. If you toss 10 coins at random, then you'll get 5 heads only a percentage of the time, but if you toss 10,000,000 coins, you'll get much closer to 50% heads.
There are formula which you can use to calculate how likely the sample is going to match the population, based upon the size of the population and the sample.
The US has a base in Cuba because in 1903 Cuba & the US signed an agreement to establish a US naval base in Cuba, for an annual rent. After the Castro revolution the US consider the agreement to continue, but the new Cuban government refused to honor the agreement, but in the real world, there is nothing they can do about it. The US government sends the annual rent, and the Cuban government doesn't cash the check. The use of the base for the camp is probably because it's the nearest base on non-US soil, and due to the non-relationship between the base and the surrounding country, one of the most isolated.
You shouldn't compare the raw CO2, but the source of the CO2. Humans will breath out CO2 mainly from sources which do not increase the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A plant intakes CO2 from the atmosphere, and converts it into food, which eventually ends up in us, we burn the food, and the CO2 gets breathed out. This can happen forever without increaasing the amount of CO2.
A car burns fossil fuels, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere which wasn't there before (at least, not for millions of years). This does increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I think that you'd find this is true in virtually every manufacturer & supplier. The role of management isn't to ensure that every good project comes to fruitition, it's to maximize overall performance. If selling 'Corporate I386' had meant that they lost more profits on other products than they'd gain on CI386, then that's the only sensible thing to do.
Re:Separating Content from Presentation a Good Thi
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There is a big difference between seperating presentation from content and removing the presentation totally.
Instead of migrating off of SMTP, what's needed is a way to extend SMTP to handle spam. SMTP has the facility to add features, for example many servers support the SIZE extension to avoid problems with a large message not being able to be accepted for delivery. This would mean that we could slowly upgrade the installations.
If we had a working system of micropayments then a system that's been suggested where you are charged if the sender isn't on the reciever's white list. The reciever adjusts the amount to how much receving one peice of spam is worth to her, and the sender sets the limit that he's prepared to accept. Of course, we don't have a working system of micropayements, so that's off the list.
Another system would be a web of trust, similar t o PGP. If the reciver has personally signed the sender's key, then it's not going to be spam. This would probably require a new protocol for distributing & revoking trusts.
You also have to get the magnesium, it's usually found as magnesium oxide, magnesium sulfate or in limestone in nature. Making metalic magnesium from these requires (guess what) energy!!! You're not going to win on this game.
No it isn't. Natural gas is found with all oil deposits, and in many cases it's just burnt because there it's just not economic to bring it to where it's used. Secondly, methane can be formed from oil through cracking. Again it's not, because it's not economic to do so. Thirdly methane is found whenever something is decomposing, so if you have a capped landfill, you have to have handle the methane, and this is sometimes used for fuel, eg this program. We will never run out of methane.
The big problem with keeping it as electricity is that electricity doesn't keep on its own.
Which is why every electicity generator adjusts the amount they are generating to supply. You fill the base need with as much as possible of the cheapest marginal cost and/or ones which take a long time to come on stream (eg some plant designs require a period of weeks to slowly heat up the furnace without cracking it). You then use the rest to fill your peak demand.
Unfortunatly like many hydrogen fans, they're ignoring the realities of the world. For example, under the creation of hydrogen, they're suggesting that you should use electrolosis of water to produce it, because steam reformation of methane releases CO2. No-one does electrolosis for a reason, it's horribly inefficent. You then have to deal with moving a dangerous and hard to deal with molecule around, which is going to reduce the efficency even more, and then what do they do at the end? Use it in a fuel cell to produce electricity! If you've got electricity produced by any method and want to make best use of it, then KEEP it as electricity. Using it to make hydrogen is just throwing it away.
Slashdot Mirror
Again in Canada, most phones don't have SIM cards. Only one of the 4 major networks uses GSM and has SIM cards.
It's only possible when you have a representative sample. If you have a systemic bias in your sample then there is nothing you can do to correct this, and your extrapolation is going to be invalid. An example could be trying to estimate household income by a telephone income. Those on a low income are less likely to have a telephone, and therefore you estimate the average income too high. In this case, those who know their computers are being monitored may choose to not do things which people who are not being monitored may choose to do.
For you to know that this is due to the test structure, you'd have to know how many people would have difficultly with other formats. With around 10% of adults in the USA having some level of illitercy, I'm not sure what test could achive closer to 100%
Obviously the idea is to make Intel's own implementation, so they can then go and sue Transmeta for infringing Intel's patents.
Except
No, double-blind means that they don't know which items are being tested. It's perfectly ok for them to know the purpose of the testing. If you know that can A contains coke, and can B contains pepsi, then you can use your biases to choose can A over B. On the other hand, if you don't know which one is which, then you can't.
The direction of a flare is determined by the direction that the portion of the sun is pointing at when it's released. That's not going to be the closest point to the Earth, because the Earth has to go around in it's orbit for a couple of days before the flare hits us.
Usually, yes, but the judge can order that the transcript is sealed, almost always at the request of one or the other side. Claiming that the transcript contains trade secrets or other information that should not be distributed is a reason why they would do so.
Contractors may or may not be work for hire, it depends on the specifics of the contract between them. Employees are a different kettle of fish.
No, since 1976 in the US, and years beforehand in the civalized parts of the world, any work which involves substantial creative effort is born copyrighted.
It's transmitted encrypted. It used to be almost always DES, which obviously caused a few problems over the years, but this story gives some details. Newer machines use AES, which avoids those problems.
Whenever you sample a population, there is a possibility of the sample being non-representative of the population. If you toss 10 coins at random, then you'll get 5 heads only a percentage of the time, but if you toss 10,000,000 coins, you'll get much closer to 50% heads.
There are formula which you can use to calculate how likely the sample is going to match the population, based upon the size of the population and the sample.
The US has a base in Cuba because in 1903 Cuba & the US signed an agreement to establish a US naval base in Cuba, for an annual rent. After the Castro revolution the US consider the agreement to continue, but the new Cuban government refused to honor the agreement, but in the real world, there is nothing they can do about it. The US government sends the annual rent, and the Cuban government doesn't cash the check. The use of the base for the camp is probably because it's the nearest base on non-US soil, and due to the non-relationship between the base and the surrounding country, one of the most isolated.
A car burns fossil fuels, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere which wasn't there before (at least, not for millions of years). This does increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So we have to get rid of Courtney Love and Paul McCartney. What's the down side?
I think that you'd find this is true in virtually every manufacturer & supplier. The role of management isn't to ensure that every good project comes to fruitition, it's to maximize overall performance. If selling 'Corporate I386' had meant that they lost more profits on other products than they'd gain on CI386, then that's the only sensible thing to do.
There is a big difference between seperating presentation from content and removing the presentation totally.
The Wendy's guy wrote a programming book?
If we had a working system of micropayments then a system that's been suggested where you are charged if the sender isn't on the reciever's white list. The reciever adjusts the amount to how much receving one peice of spam is worth to her, and the sender sets the limit that he's prepared to accept. Of course, we don't have a working system of micropayements, so that's off the list.
Another system would be a web of trust, similar t o PGP. If the reciver has personally signed the sender's key, then it's not going to be spam. This would probably require a new protocol for distributing & revoking trusts.
You mean Albuquerque Isotopes. They moved.
You also have to get the magnesium, it's usually found as magnesium oxide, magnesium sulfate or in limestone in nature. Making metalic magnesium from these requires (guess what) energy!!! You're not going to win on this game.
Important cavet - we don't yet know how to produce net energy, even withe He3. Any fusion reactors are still many years off.
No it isn't. Natural gas is found with all oil deposits, and in many cases it's just burnt because there it's just not economic to bring it to where it's used. Secondly, methane can be formed from oil through cracking. Again it's not, because it's not economic to do so. Thirdly methane is found whenever something is decomposing, so if you have a capped landfill, you have to have handle the methane, and this is sometimes used for fuel, eg this program. We will never run out of methane.
Which is why every electicity generator adjusts the amount they are generating to supply. You fill the base need with as much as possible of the cheapest marginal cost and/or ones which take a long time to come on stream (eg some plant designs require a period of weeks to slowly heat up the furnace without cracking it). You then use the rest to fill your peak demand.
Unfortunatly like many hydrogen fans, they're ignoring the realities of the world. For example, under the creation of hydrogen, they're suggesting that you should use electrolosis of water to produce it, because steam reformation of methane releases CO2. No-one does electrolosis for a reason, it's horribly inefficent. You then have to deal with moving a dangerous and hard to deal with molecule around, which is going to reduce the efficency even more, and then what do they do at the end? Use it in a fuel cell to produce electricity! If you've got electricity produced by any method and want to make best use of it, then KEEP it as electricity. Using it to make hydrogen is just throwing it away.