The problem with that definition is that it'd include a lot of random TNOs. We'd be up to like 15 planets by now, with an additional maybe 100 yet to be found in highly eccentric orbits
So? That's bad how?
Also, if that definition gets chosen you can look forward to decades of drama after every new TNO discovery about whether that object is in hydro-static equilibrium or not.
For almost all bodies, this is pretty obvious. For objects directly on the border, you can call them "borderline" or "indeterminate". It happens a lot in science.
Can you imagine if a Chinese astronomer finds such an object barely on the edge of the definition, but we only have a few single pixels of images available, and the IAU needs to make a finding on whether it qualifies as a planet or not?
If that bothers you, it's because you are confusing an IAU finding with fact.
In computational biology and other computational extensions of the physical science, the reproducibility basically comes in the form of requirements to provide the software and raw data for a study. It's easy for the individual that compiles this information to verify that they get the same result as the one they report in the article. The concern there boils down to the provenance of the source data, which may be from registries, public data sets, or some combination of public and private data.
The purpose of reproduction is to guard against statistical accidents, bad assumptions, and fraud, and running the same software over the same data doesn't do that. Reproduction in the scientific sense means that someone who collects their own data and writes their own software using just the assumptions stated in your paper gets the same scientific result.
Reproducibility in computational and data intensive disciplines is actually a bigger problem than in experimental sciences, because it's so easy to share code and data; that means that lots of people run basically the same code over basically the same data and seem to be "reproducing" a result, when in fact, they are adding no new information.
Yes, you can, even using brute force methods. There really is little reason why not: HDMI involves as much processing for transmission as wireless.
Of course, if you put graphics processing and sensors into the headset, wireless headsets could actually do better than wired ones even with slower connections.
That's a problem with the phone-based VR displays, but generally not with the Rift or Vive. If you haven't tried the latter, you really haven't experienced VR.
The current generation of VR headsets is bulky, the resolution is mediocre, the cables are annoying, and the profusion of platforms and controllers makes it painful to set up and use.
The next gen is going to be higher resolution and wireless, and Microsoft is going to have standard APIs for them. I expect that's when they'll go mainstream.
WebVR also isn't ready for prime time yet, but once it is, you'll probably see a lot more VR porn sites popping up, which should also help adoption.
Note that sexism was a *small* part of the situation described. What amazes me was the continued desire to work for a company because of the 'great engineers'.
Uber seems to be generally rated a "good place to work for".
The legal consequences of sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace are so serious that it is unbelievable that HR would not have taken more decisive action. Given that neither Fowler nor the many other women she says have been harassed have sued over sex discrimination and instead chose to attack the company on her blog, it seems plausible that she is exaggerating in order to get back at her former employer (a form of indirect aggression).
Electrical or magnetic interference inside a computer system can cause a single bit of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) to spontaneously flip to the opposite state. It was initially thought that this was mainly due to alpha particles emitted by contaminants in chip packaging material, but research has shown that the majority of one-off soft errors in DRAM chips occur as a result of background radiation, chiefly neutrons from cosmic ray secondaries, which may change the contents of one or more memory cells or interfere with the circuitry used to read or write to them.[2] Hence, the error rates increase rapidly with rising altitude; for example, compared to the sea level, the rate of neutron flux is 3.5 times higher at 1.5 km and 300 times higher at 10–12 km (the cruising altitude of commercial airplanes).
Coming up with pointless moronic rules, applying zero tolerance and feeling good about themselves for having done "a great job" at defending the country's best interests.
That's because in the US, unlike most other countries, once you have entered the country, there is very little government surveillance or control of foreigners/visitors. But, I agree: the US should simply abolish the visa-waiver program and return to stronger vetting when issuing visas.
Just be cause I don't want to visit your country due to the protracted, draconian and at times even humiliating process I'd have to subject myself to in order to get a Visa, that does not mean that I hate Americans.
I have no idea what your country is since you haven't said. Your name suggests that you are from Germany, but you don't need a visa from Germany. And your complaints about a "draconian and humiliating process" also suggest that you come from a rich, privileged European country, because people from most other countries understand that traveling anywhere requires intrusive searches and disclosures, and a significant possibility of getting turned away.
Prior to 1986, the US required visas from European countries; the visa-free travel program was instituted because Europe was considered low risk, was wealthy, and the US wanted to spend its consular resources elsewhere. Given the current state of the EU, instead of relaxing travel security further, it may well be a good idea for the US to reconsider the visa-free travel program with Europe and require visas again. (Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are probably still fine for visa-free travel.)
Simpler way: just don't visit the United States. As a bonus, you will miss all the other airport humiliations: mass-fingerprinting, world's worst security theatre (you want my shoes off?), and risk of arbitrary refusal of entry without right of appeal or even explanation. [...] Are there any other countries where this sort of thing goes on?
Yes: pretty much every other country in the world can refuse travelers entry without explanation and search people and their possessions in any way they like. They will also have you tailed by a person, tap your phones, and bug your rooms. And that includes European countries.
But, of course, members of the lily-white, privileged European country club of former wealthy empires are outraged when they are treated like travelers from other countries. Outraged, I tell you!
I gather you're too politically naive to understand the difference between the inept statements of an inexperienced administration and the threat of widespread, automated censorship?
Aside from subject matter, few people have any emotional or economic investment in not believing astronomers (although there's some irrationality about dark matter).
True. But that's not the difference that makes astronomy conform to the scientific method, while climate change research does not. Keep trying.
They also can't tear apart his home without a warrant.
If he uses a password that causes his phone to self-destruct, that is just the kind of probable cause they may need to get a warrant.
I'd rather risk further provocation in order to defend what I think is right
Both key disclosure laws and border control are unsettled legal and moral areas, so I don't even presume to know what's right.
The problem is, not many people will do that anymore, the authorities know this, and our rights are becoming indefensible.
Government has become bigger and more intrusive, certainly. On the other hand, people probably have also become more knowledgeable and less respectful of government. I think that's part of the political upheavals we're seeing right now.
In the message you were responding to, I was referring to general circumstances where key disclosure laws apply.
Even in his case, it would have been risky to erase the phone. For example, if they suspected him of espionage, they might have taken erasing the phone as justification for detaining him and then searching his home with a fine tooth comb.
Unless you know what you're being investigated for, erasing the phone may cause you more trouble than unlocking it. In fact, even just having the kind of software that can erase the phone in response to certain passwords would be viewed as suspicious by courts, as would "deniable encryption" software.
I'm not saying that it's right, I'm simply pointing out the way it is: if you play such games with border control or police, the cost to you may be quite high.
Slashdot Mirror
So? That's bad how?
For almost all bodies, this is pretty obvious. For objects directly on the border, you can call them "borderline" or "indeterminate". It happens a lot in science.
If that bothers you, it's because you are confusing an IAU finding with fact.
You just answered your own question.
The purpose of reproduction is to guard against statistical accidents, bad assumptions, and fraud, and running the same software over the same data doesn't do that. Reproduction in the scientific sense means that someone who collects their own data and writes their own software using just the assumptions stated in your paper gets the same scientific result.
Reproducibility in computational and data intensive disciplines is actually a bigger problem than in experimental sciences, because it's so easy to share code and data; that means that lots of people run basically the same code over basically the same data and seem to be "reproducing" a result, when in fact, they are adding no new information.
A planet is any body in hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly spherical) orbiting a star.
A moon is any solid body orbiting a planet.
Yes, you can, even using brute force methods. There really is little reason why not: HDMI involves as much processing for transmission as wireless.
Of course, if you put graphics processing and sensors into the headset, wireless headsets could actually do better than wired ones even with slower connections.
It would be, if anybody had an opportunity to. Note how neither she nor the other women have filed a court case? Why do you think that is?
Uber, on the other hand, hired a famous legal social justice activist, Eric Holder, to look into the allegations.
I suspect her allegations will turn out to be largely wrong. And if her allegations are false, she should never hold a job in tech again.
That's a problem with the phone-based VR displays, but generally not with the Rift or Vive. If you haven't tried the latter, you really haven't experienced VR.
The current generation of VR headsets is bulky, the resolution is mediocre, the cables are annoying, and the profusion of platforms and controllers makes it painful to set up and use.
The next gen is going to be higher resolution and wireless, and Microsoft is going to have standard APIs for them. I expect that's when they'll go mainstream.
WebVR also isn't ready for prime time yet, but once it is, you'll probably see a lot more VR porn sites popping up, which should also help adoption.
Which is precisely why there is significant doubt over the veracity of her story.
If you read the article, you'll see that that is what Fowler claims; it's not an established fact.
She says she took screenshots. There is no independent evidence beyond what she says, and her story doesn't seem credible.
Uber seems to be generally rated a "good place to work for".
The legal consequences of sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace are so serious that it is unbelievable that HR would not have taken more decisive action. Given that neither Fowler nor the many other women she says have been harassed have sued over sex discrimination and instead chose to attack the company on her blog, it seems plausible that she is exaggerating in order to get back at her former employer (a form of indirect aggression).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And, whaddaya know, you can buy them pretty much everywhere. For voting machines, medical applications, etc. they should obviously be used.
Do you suffer from senile dementia so that you can't remember a few posts back? This is what I said:
True, like when Democrats want to open borders in order to cement their political power, no matter what it does to the country. Or when European leaders ignore the clear mandate and desire by majorities to stop further immigration from mainly Muslim countries.
That's because in the US, unlike most other countries, once you have entered the country, there is very little government surveillance or control of foreigners/visitors. But, I agree: the US should simply abolish the visa-waiver program and return to stronger vetting when issuing visas.
I have no idea what your country is since you haven't said. Your name suggests that you are from Germany, but you don't need a visa from Germany. And your complaints about a "draconian and humiliating process" also suggest that you come from a rich, privileged European country, because people from most other countries understand that traveling anywhere requires intrusive searches and disclosures, and a significant possibility of getting turned away.
Prior to 1986, the US required visas from European countries; the visa-free travel program was instituted because Europe was considered low risk, was wealthy, and the US wanted to spend its consular resources elsewhere. Given the current state of the EU, instead of relaxing travel security further, it may well be a good idea for the US to reconsider the visa-free travel program with Europe and require visas again. (Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are probably still fine for visa-free travel.)
Yes: pretty much every other country in the world can refuse travelers entry without explanation and search people and their possessions in any way they like. They will also have you tailed by a person, tap your phones, and bug your rooms. And that includes European countries.
But, of course, members of the lily-white, privileged European country club of former wealthy empires are outraged when they are treated like travelers from other countries. Outraged, I tell you!
Please follow your own advice.
I decoded your sarcasm just fine: that's why I accused you of being naive.
I gather you're too politically naive to understand the difference between the inept statements of an inexperienced administration and the threat of widespread, automated censorship?
True. But that's not the difference that makes astronomy conform to the scientific method, while climate change research does not. Keep trying.
If he uses a password that causes his phone to self-destruct, that is just the kind of probable cause they may need to get a warrant.
Both key disclosure laws and border control are unsettled legal and moral areas, so I don't even presume to know what's right.
Government has become bigger and more intrusive, certainly. On the other hand, people probably have also become more knowledgeable and less respectful of government. I think that's part of the political upheavals we're seeing right now.
I leave it to you to try to work out the essential differences between astronomy and climate change modeling.
In the message you were responding to, I was referring to general circumstances where key disclosure laws apply.
Even in his case, it would have been risky to erase the phone. For example, if they suspected him of espionage, they might have taken erasing the phone as justification for detaining him and then searching his home with a fine tooth comb.
Unless you know what you're being investigated for, erasing the phone may cause you more trouble than unlocking it. In fact, even just having the kind of software that can erase the phone in response to certain passwords would be viewed as suspicious by courts, as would "deniable encryption" software.
I'm not saying that it's right, I'm simply pointing out the way it is: if you play such games with border control or police, the cost to you may be quite high.
Well, thanks anyway for confirming that you have no idea what the scientific method is or how it relates to climate change.