Would this Harvard Professor have argued similarly if the situation had been reversed, with Clinton winning but Trump having the popular vote? I thought not...
The fact that this happened twice in ancient (by US standards) history is not enough... maybe to a lawyer who is used to giving incredible weight to case law. Here's what my exhaustive couple of minutes worth of research in Google turns up:
- In 1824, no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes. The guy they selected in the end to become president (John Quincy Adams) did not have the most electoral votes, and had not won the popular vote either
- The 1876 election apparently saw some dispute over the results in a couple of key states, and the matter was settled between the two contestants a year later, essentially having one candidate ceding victory to the other.
Not at all the same as the case at hand in 2016. And speaking of case law; think about the terrible precedent you'd be setting here: "If we don't like the outcome of the election, we can change it", with "we" being whichever group, organisation or cabal has the most leverage over / pull with the electoral college. No, GP is right: if you want the candidate with the popular vote to win, change the system so that this happens automatically and democratically, not by giving the finger to roughly half the candidate and saying "sorry, but we didn't like your candidate and the law says we can nix him".
Disclaimer: I'm a European, no great fan of Hillary, but as another European said: I would have voted for Satan over Trump.
Thieves going after high end vehicles routinely carry GPS / GSM jammers to ensure the tracker either gets no position fix or won't be able to communicate with the mothership. The equipment isn't especially expensive or hard to come by. I wonder why insurers still demand them.
VR in the 90s simply wasn't good enough (neither the headsets not the content that could be produced for it), and it never was going to be good enough with the available tech. As a result it did not offer enough of an advantage to be attractive to anyone but a few, and it died before even many experimenters got their hands on one.
This time could be different: anyone who has tried a modern VR headset can see that the potential is there, especially compared to the 90s models. That doesn't mean that VR will become mainstream: price is still an issue, required computing power, but also competing standards and a lack of good content are potential killers. A lot of games are already almost VR ready, but movies... they might be difficult and expensive to do well in VR. Even simple 3D movies are by no means easy, and there are only a handful of movies where 3D was done really well.
Speaking of 3D, the comparison between the 3D and VR hype is inaccurate. 3D technology suffers from fundamental limitations that prevent it from working well on smaller screens. People thought that watching Avatar in 3D in the cinema was a transformative experience (and regardless of what one might think of the movie itself, it was bloody amazing to watch), but didn't get the same level of immersion on their home theatre setup, due to the realities of how 3D works. Barring some technological breakthrough (or people simply donning VR or lightfield headsets to watch these movies), 3D in the 20s and 30s is going to be the same as it is now. Technology has made it practical for the cinema, and you see that people still do enjoy 3D movies there. Not every movie is 3D, but it hardly is a gimmick that is dying out.
VR is more than a screen-in-a-headset, and it doesn't just disconnect you from the world; it immerses you in another. The level of immersion that can be achieved by a few "small" things working together (good head tracking, 3D video and audio, virtual presence i.e. being able to see others or your own body rendered in the virtual environment) is incredible, and has great potential for games as well as movies. I agree with the guy that VR is a potential game changer (ha ha).
It might not be something for casual gamers or viewers, though. Still, if the price comes down sufficiently I am sure they will at least try it.
In that case they are using it wrong. The electronic counting machine is used to be able to announce the results quickly after the polls close, but it's the paper ballots that should determine the final result. The paper trail doesn't exist for random spot checks or audits where tampering with the machines is suspected, each and every paper ballot shoud be counted under independent (or bipartisan) oversight. The fact that the results of some of these machines are brought into question is a clear sign that voting machines are unsuitable for producing the final count.
So it's normal to design prototype aircraft that are expected to stay up for 30 minutes before failing but not 90? And if they are designed that way, is it normal to fly them until they break anyway? Because that was my point, as GP suggested that the mechanical failure might be due to flying the craft a bit longer than planned. That just seems silly and unlikely.
Re. point 3: teach a man how to fish and all that. That's what the internet is for, and even crappy limited access through feature phones has already improved the lives of countless people in developing nations, far more than any one shipment of grain would have. Access to information on weather and prices, access to markets, mobile payments, all these have enabled people to improve productivity, operate in new markets, and start new businesses.
Drones might be a good solution to deliver Internet to such locations: cheap and difficult to vandalize. I just wished it wasn't the Zuck doing this.
Or maybe because they kept it up 3x as long as it was designed, something let go that wouldn't have on a shorter flight.
Come on, this isn't a rocket under tremendous stresses or a Mars rover in a harsh environment, it's a bloody drone, albeit a high altitude one. Experimental model airplanes cobbled together by hobbyists over the weekend from balsa wood and shrink foil last a hell of a lot longer than 96 minutes without maintenance (even though they don't stay aloft that long in a single flight). If these guys cannot design a prototype that flies for that long, then I hope the regulators will take a very long and hard look before rating the production model.
A design / mission goal of "fly it for 30 minutes without structural failure in flight" is something I would call a serious lack of ambition and proof of little faith in their own abilities. And if you have serious doubts about the aircraft being able to exceed that crappy benchmark, then flying it beyond that point (or flyign it at all) is rather irresponsible. However my guess is that the goal was 30 minutes of continuous autonomous operation before a human operator would have to intervene, or before power / battery issues would force a landing. The structural failure would / should have been wholly unexpected.
It's not about the rules, but about setting them up. You can, but can your grandma? That's the lithmus test of the proposed device. You need a device that can figure out the rules by itself, or that makes it dead easy for people to configure it.
As someone suggested in an earlier post: have IoT devices carry a manifest (both printed on the box and in software) of the addresses / ports it needs to access. If we'd have a protocol for this, it could ask the router for that access automatically and prompt the user to visit the router and review / accept the requested access. That's something that grandma would be able to do...
And most importantly: set rules for which device can go where on 80. Your desktop can have it all, whereas your IP camera is allowed access only to the IP address of the remote access service. Sure, a compromised device could spoof its IP or MAC address and still get out, but... it will have to be infected in the first place. And a well configured firewall will make that much harder.
It certainly is a story. Maybe not because of the rights and wrongs of avoiding taxes or Google's reaction, but because this ought to serve as a wake-up call for anyone relying on an external party for important data or services, especially in cases when it is not easy or possible to switch services or retrieve the data. If the tems of service allow a provider to revoke your access whenever they feel like it, then do not put your data there. And even when that's not allowed under the terms of service, keep in mind that a company can go broke or simply suspend its service in any case.
The spirit of the law is being broken all the time by the US government themselves, when they argue that forcing someone to unlock a phone with a fingerprint is not self-incrimination, or that burning a flag technically isn't "speech", or that civil forfeiture is even a thing.
The 5s is 3 years "old", and still work fine after 3 years if you take care of it a little. Same for a 3 year old high end Android phone, I suspect. If you buy cheap rubbish however, you do need to replace it a lot sooner.
GLONASS provides better accuracy at higher latitudes, so requiring support for it helps Russian customers as well. It makes sense for Russia to demand this in order to promote adoption. I doubt that this was the deciding factor for the manufacturers though; supporting multiple systems is dirt cheap and would benefit customers in other regions as well, it's a good selling point.
I suppose Europe still sees a benefit in having our own GPS, rather than having to rely on either the US or the Russian system. The world has changed indeed, and GPS is now in such widespread use that losing access (or no longer having the high accuracy version) would have a real economic impact.
A lot of mobile phones sold today already support both GPS and GLONASS. I expect that at some point the nav chip manufacturers will simply add support for Galileo.
There are stories of standing desks at power school, so trainees don't fall asleep while sitting and studying... and of the occasional *thump* when someone standing falls asleep anyway
I hope that this doesn't reflect their operational environment...
That's an interesting perspective. I interviewed coder job applicants at some point in my life: and found that you can figure out who is competent and who is not to some degree: the less competent drifter can be exposed by just talking about details of previous projects. No bloody coding tests required, either. But exceptional skills are not so easily uncovered from a resumé or in an interview; they can sometimes proven by reputation or publication, for example contributions to FOSS projects.
However, that changes once the exceptional programmer gets to work. And even then I found that exceptional programmers don't get paid substantially more than the merely adequate.
Slashdot Mirror
Crowd says: "real!"
Didn't buy anything either on Friday. Maybe I will when I get some cash together again (you insensitive clod)
"half the candidate" should be "half the populace" of course, and where's my damn edit button?
Would this Harvard Professor have argued similarly if the situation had been reversed, with Clinton winning but Trump having the popular vote? I thought not...
The fact that this happened twice in ancient (by US standards) history is not enough... maybe to a lawyer who is used to giving incredible weight to case law. Here's what my exhaustive couple of minutes worth of research in Google turns up:
- In 1824, no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes. The guy they selected in the end to become president (John Quincy Adams) did not have the most electoral votes, and had not won the popular vote either
- The 1876 election apparently saw some dispute over the results in a couple of key states, and the matter was settled between the two contestants a year later, essentially having one candidate ceding victory to the other.
Not at all the same as the case at hand in 2016. And speaking of case law; think about the terrible precedent you'd be setting here: "If we don't like the outcome of the election, we can change it", with "we" being whichever group, organisation or cabal has the most leverage over / pull with the electoral college. No, GP is right: if you want the candidate with the popular vote to win, change the system so that this happens automatically and democratically, not by giving the finger to roughly half the candidate and saying "sorry, but we didn't like your candidate and the law says we can nix him".
Disclaimer: I'm a European, no great fan of Hillary, but as another European said: I would have voted for Satan over Trump.
Thieves going after high end vehicles routinely carry GPS / GSM jammers to ensure the tracker either gets no position fix or won't be able to communicate with the mothership. The equipment isn't especially expensive or hard to come by. I wonder why insurers still demand them.
VR is certainly no substitute for good storytelling (at least I hope to god it won't be), but it can add to the experience of even a well-told story.
VR in the 90s simply wasn't good enough (neither the headsets not the content that could be produced for it), and it never was going to be good enough with the available tech. As a result it did not offer enough of an advantage to be attractive to anyone but a few, and it died before even many experimenters got their hands on one.
This time could be different: anyone who has tried a modern VR headset can see that the potential is there, especially compared to the 90s models. That doesn't mean that VR will become mainstream: price is still an issue, required computing power, but also competing standards and a lack of good content are potential killers. A lot of games are already almost VR ready, but movies... they might be difficult and expensive to do well in VR. Even simple 3D movies are by no means easy, and there are only a handful of movies where 3D was done really well.
Speaking of 3D, the comparison between the 3D and VR hype is inaccurate. 3D technology suffers from fundamental limitations that prevent it from working well on smaller screens. People thought that watching Avatar in 3D in the cinema was a transformative experience (and regardless of what one might think of the movie itself, it was bloody amazing to watch), but didn't get the same level of immersion on their home theatre setup, due to the realities of how 3D works. Barring some technological breakthrough (or people simply donning VR or lightfield headsets to watch these movies), 3D in the 20s and 30s is going to be the same as it is now. Technology has made it practical for the cinema, and you see that people still do enjoy 3D movies there. Not every movie is 3D, but it hardly is a gimmick that is dying out.
VR is more than a screen-in-a-headset, and it doesn't just disconnect you from the world; it immerses you in another. The level of immersion that can be achieved by a few "small" things working together (good head tracking, 3D video and audio, virtual presence i.e. being able to see others or your own body rendered in the virtual environment) is incredible, and has great potential for games as well as movies. I agree with the guy that VR is a potential game changer (ha ha).
It might not be something for casual gamers or viewers, though. Still, if the price comes down sufficiently I am sure they will at least try it.
In that case they are using it wrong. The electronic counting machine is used to be able to announce the results quickly after the polls close, but it's the paper ballots that should determine the final result. The paper trail doesn't exist for random spot checks or audits where tampering with the machines is suspected, each and every paper ballot shoud be counted under independent (or bipartisan) oversight. The fact that the results of some of these machines are brought into question is a clear sign that voting machines are unsuitable for producing the final count.
So it's normal to design prototype aircraft that are expected to stay up for 30 minutes before failing but not 90? And if they are designed that way, is it normal to fly them until they break anyway? Because that was my point, as GP suggested that the mechanical failure might be due to flying the craft a bit longer than planned. That just seems silly and unlikely.
Re. point 3: teach a man how to fish and all that. That's what the internet is for, and even crappy limited access through feature phones has already improved the lives of countless people in developing nations, far more than any one shipment of grain would have. Access to information on weather and prices, access to markets, mobile payments, all these have enabled people to improve productivity, operate in new markets, and start new businesses.
Drones might be a good solution to deliver Internet to such locations: cheap and difficult to vandalize. I just wished it wasn't the Zuck doing this.
Or maybe because they kept it up 3x as long as it was designed, something let go that wouldn't have on a shorter flight.
Come on, this isn't a rocket under tremendous stresses or a Mars rover in a harsh environment, it's a bloody drone, albeit a high altitude one. Experimental model airplanes cobbled together by hobbyists over the weekend from balsa wood and shrink foil last a hell of a lot longer than 96 minutes without maintenance (even though they don't stay aloft that long in a single flight). If these guys cannot design a prototype that flies for that long, then I hope the regulators will take a very long and hard look before rating the production model.
A design / mission goal of "fly it for 30 minutes without structural failure in flight" is something I would call a serious lack of ambition and proof of little faith in their own abilities. And if you have serious doubts about the aircraft being able to exceed that crappy benchmark, then flying it beyond that point (or flyign it at all) is rather irresponsible. However my guess is that the goal was 30 minutes of continuous autonomous operation before a human operator would have to intervene, or before power / battery issues would force a landing. The structural failure would / should have been wholly unexpected.
It's not about the rules, but about setting them up. You can, but can your grandma? That's the lithmus test of the proposed device. You need a device that can figure out the rules by itself, or that makes it dead easy for people to configure it.
As someone suggested in an earlier post: have IoT devices carry a manifest (both printed on the box and in software) of the addresses / ports it needs to access. If we'd have a protocol for this, it could ask the router for that access automatically and prompt the user to visit the router and review / accept the requested access. That's something that grandma would be able to do...
And most importantly: set rules for which device can go where on 80. Your desktop can have it all, whereas your IP camera is allowed access only to the IP address of the remote access service. Sure, a compromised device could spoof its IP or MAC address and still get out, but... it will have to be infected in the first place. And a well configured firewall will make that much harder.
It certainly is a story. Maybe not because of the rights and wrongs of avoiding taxes or Google's reaction, but because this ought to serve as a wake-up call for anyone relying on an external party for important data or services, especially in cases when it is not easy or possible to switch services or retrieve the data. If the tems of service allow a provider to revoke your access whenever they feel like it, then do not put your data there. And even when that's not allowed under the terms of service, keep in mind that a company can go broke or simply suspend its service in any case.
The spirit of the law is being broken all the time by the US government themselves, when they argue that forcing someone to unlock a phone with a fingerprint is not self-incrimination, or that burning a flag technically isn't "speech", or that civil forfeiture is even a thing.
The 5s is 3 years "old", and still work fine after 3 years if you take care of it a little. Same for a 3 year old high end Android phone, I suspect. If you buy cheap rubbish however, you do need to replace it a lot sooner.
How would one build a free energy device out of a working EM drive?
What makes entepreneurs successful is not luck, but taking advantage of it when it presents itself.
It's probably a comparison between these new tiles and ceramic ones. And those are quite pricey...
GLONASS provides better accuracy at higher latitudes, so requiring support for it helps Russian customers as well. It makes sense for Russia to demand this in order to promote adoption. I doubt that this was the deciding factor for the manufacturers though; supporting multiple systems is dirt cheap and would benefit customers in other regions as well, it's a good selling point.
I suppose Europe still sees a benefit in having our own GPS, rather than having to rely on either the US or the Russian system. The world has changed indeed, and GPS is now in such widespread use that losing access (or no longer having the high accuracy version) would have a real economic impact.
A lot of mobile phones sold today already support both GPS and GLONASS. I expect that at some point the nav chip manufacturers will simply add support for Galileo.
There are stories of standing desks at power school, so trainees don't fall asleep while sitting and studying... and of the occasional *thump* when someone standing falls asleep anyway
I hope that this doesn't reflect their operational environment...
Absolutely. But I do not know what the actual law says about this (in the Netherlands or in the USA)
That's an interesting perspective. I interviewed coder job applicants at some point in my life: and found that you can figure out who is competent and who is not to some degree: the less competent drifter can be exposed by just talking about details of previous projects. No bloody coding tests required, either. But exceptional skills are not so easily uncovered from a resumé or in an interview; they can sometimes proven by reputation or publication, for example contributions to FOSS projects.
However, that changes once the exceptional programmer gets to work. And even then I found that exceptional programmers don't get paid substantially more than the merely adequate.