Hah hah, yes, right, a surveillance society really erases law and rules and hypocritical bullshit. Tell me again how East Germany disposed of all its laws and rules.
I think for me, the killer application would be having such a device record everything I see into a circular buffer, and then if some cockhead does something obnoxious or criminal in the street, it can be kept to either hand timestamped footage to police, or to shame said people on the Internet.
I'm going to go right ahead and call this a totalitarian hell. Millions of Mrs. Grundys with always-on recording. Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.
The doomsayers may call it a totalitarian hell, but I think it could yet be a renaissance for the polite and law-abiding majority.
There is no polite and law-abiding majority. There are too many laws and too many rules (many conflicting) associated with "polite".
The fact that the sample 16 phones did not exceed emission limits is hardly any guarantee that other phones do not, nor that one of those sampled phones with replacement firmware would not.
You could make that objection, or similar ones, to any test which could be made. Incompleteness of evidence against the proposition that there is interference does not constitute evidence of interference.
The fact that they are emitting at all on navigation and landing frequencies is a reason to keep an open mind regarding interference.
Out of band radiation is practically impossible to avoid completely with electronic equipment; that's why there are standards greater than zero for such emissions.
To translate things into terms that the slashdot audience may have an easier time understanding: The failure to reproduce a software bug on the programmer's system is hardly evidence that the software is fine.
It is still quite possible -- even likely -- that the software bug, or flight computer anomaly, is not caused by what the user thinks it was caused by. People are very good at finding patterns, but that includes spurious ones as well as real ones.
Or whatever the number is today not paying Federal Income Tax.
Sure, you can raise taxes on the 2% or the 1%, but first of all it won't get you much, because they're such a small part of the population, and second of all they can usually figure out way to avoid most of the bite. So you do that to great fanfare, then you quietly sock it to the bulk of us in the next follow-up bill.
A situation where (just over) half the country is paying all of the bills makes no sense. Before raising taxes on those of us who are, in fact, paying taxes, it's about time to impose taxes on the broad base of people who are not paying taxes. Mostly this means not raising rates, but cutting deductions and credits -- in particular, the darling of Republicans and Democrats alike, the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The article you quote (including the section you quote) indicates that 1) Boeing does not think there is interference from cell phones; all emissions outside the cell phone's operating frequency were within airplane equipment emissions limits. Airplane communications and navigation frequencies are separate from cell phone operating frequencies. 2) Anomalies observed in flight are NOT being reproduced in the lab, despite efforts to do so. 3) A mixed set of equipment powered from in-seat power produced emissions over airline limits, but no interference was observed, though Boeing believes it could occur at those levels.
I have a house built in 1960. The siding is the original cedar shake over plywood cladding. The insulation is fiberglass, though some is collapsed or missing. The wiring is 3-wire NM with a circuit-breaker panel (Square D, likely original); the outlets were originally 2 prong but the boxes were all grounded. No weather wrap; that came much later. Locally a lot of people have replaced the shakes with vinyl and added a weather wrap. The windows were indeed terrible, but no worse than anything which went before; they differed from wood single pane windows of the 1700s only in that they had a spring instead of weights; I replaced them with vinyl.
Houses of a similar age which didn't have shakes either had clapboard, wood panel siding, or asbestos siding (which might give you cancer but is quite durable). A few had stucco.
The worst modern houses were slightly later, with your pressed board siding (70s and 80s, not 50s and 60s, at least in this area), aluminum wiring (which if it weren't a disaster in the 70s, we'd likely be using now), and poly-butyl pipes (another '70s "innovation"). Also I suspect anything sided with fake stucco (EIFS) and cladded with OSB will end up being the "pressed board" of this era.
Still, as far as construction is concerned, I've never heard of any of these homes falling down due to structural inadequacy. Some sagging roofs due to inadequate support. There's plenty of 1920s homes around too; it's not clear at all that they're superior in construction. Superficially they've got creakier floors and stairs, and they too have their share of sagging roofs.
Uh oh... I post example of work done on my milling machine. The horrible whine sound of the spindle definitely could be interpreted as RIAA copyrighted material, especially given the talent of pop singers lately.
And now the views of all the RIAA attorneys aren't going to count. Sucks to be you.
Now, you want to do something different, so it is up to YOU to show that it does not adversely affect safety. That's a fairly straightforward process, but it does cost time and money.
No, it's impossible. Because the utility function is something like this
(increased utility due to use of devices) * (num passengers wanting to use devices) - (increased risk of crash) * (num flights) * (cost of crash)
You've got to show that this is greater than zero. But the authority-loving paternalists assign zero to the increased utility ("can't you just wait 15 minutes") while the hand-wringing nervous-nellies assign infinity to the cost of a crash, so even to get this equation to zero you have to show that the increased risk of a crash is zero -- which can't be done.
Our various governments propose ways of "petitioning for redress of grievance", and, as each becomes popular, strive to cut them off.
Of course. We (those of us in the US and Western Europe, anyway) have a stable system of government. What this means is that there are negative feedbacks in the system which counter any attempt to change it. Furthermore, the systems learn: When a tactic manages to overwhelm the existing feedback mechanisms and cause an actual change, new feedback mechanisms are set up to render that tactic ineffective in the future. Thus the more the system changes, the more stable it becomes.
It follows that any technique for change actually sanctioned by the system (such as voting) will not work, as those techniques have long since been countered. They still serve a purpose, however -- they waste the energy of those seeking change, and they present an excuse for barring other techniques.
I see two ways this could go wrong (assuming it works at all) -- the toddler robot could fall into the uncanny valley and cause revulsion. Or, it could mimic a toddler well enough to cause the normal reactions people have to toddlers not their own -- annoyance, irritation, revulsion, anger, etc.
Set up an AMT for corporations that operate in the US.
Why would the US care? RTFS -- this is all about international revenue, not domestic revenue for the US company. The US will re-tax that money if and only if it is repatriated (which of course it likely never will be). It doesn't matter to the US whether the companies involved pay German tax, Irish tax, or Cayman Islands (no) tax on international revenue.
If you think you can just abstract the interface, then you don't understand proper user experience design at all. And this is where I have to give Apple some credit (grudgingly)... they aren't trying to cram phone, tablet, and desktop into a single OS.
When I get my damn scroll arrows back in Lion, I'll believe that. That's sufficient reason not to "upgrade" from Snow Leopard.
An unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court will not mean the end of resale, even for imported items. It will mean the grey market (sale of items imported from other countries without the blessing of the manufacturer) will become illegal, but items bought from authorized resellers in the United States will still be able to resold.
I rather suspect the Supreme Court will be sharpening their knives and splitting this hair very fine, ruling against the importer but failing to provide guidance otherwise.
...on behalf of gun rights advocates, for graphically illustrating one reason requiring gun registration is a bad idea.
Another thank you from Westchester & Rockland Organized Crime, Inc, both for providing homes to avoid for their junior members, and high-value targets for their more skilled housebreakers.
I mean if all you care about is blocking spam, I can give you a 100% solution: Just block "." as in the root of all DNS. No more spam, ever. Of course it also will have a massive false positive rate, you won't get any e-mail at all.
And since anti-spam blacklist maintainers are fanatics who only get more fanatical, they do tend towards blocking/0 as their endgame.
This is not new, unique, or nontrivial. Unfortunately, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception for the USPTO.
I suspect (without reading the patent, since this IS slashdot) you'll also find that the patent is non-instructive. That is, one skilled in the art could not learn, from the patent, how to implement the invention. They just threw up a bunch of likely techniques in the air without ironing out the remaining practical problems with them, and hope when someone else bothers to solve them, they can sue.
Do any kind of profiling and you will see it's all long tail, a few sections of code are called extremely often and the rest rarely if ever during normal operation as they're error handlers and such.
That's exactly the opposite of long tail. Long tail means the tail as a whole is significant, though any given item in it is quite small.
More expensive than the time and cost spent developing, maintaining and dealing with the fallout of bugs in your high performance delicate code?
Yes. Because high performance code doesn't necessarily have to be "delicate". It does mean you can't copy objects around willy-nilly because you're afraid of mutability (functional languages, I'm looking at you). It means you probably don't want a garbage collector -- and if you do, you have to be just as careful about memory allocation as if you didn't, which kind of defeats the purpose. It means you can't just call std::do_something (or your language's equivalent) unless you know that std::do_something has decent performance for your class, which probably means you need to know more about its implementation than you'd prefer. You also have to know more about your compiler than you'd like, making sure you give it opportunities to optimize.
Sometimes you do need to resort to fragile and/or nonstandard tricks, but not often.
All I'm saying is write your slow code as clean, safe and maintainable as possible and optimize the few things that really matter.
This is where C++ shines, as much as that turd can shine. You can write most of your code as clean, safe, and maintainable as possible (within the limits of C++; you're still in template hell), and go pretty much as nasty as you want in the tricky sections without leaving the language.
Slashdot Mirror
A stone? 47% of the country is completely unproductive and has no money to give? I don't think we're that far gone.
Hah hah, yes, right, a surveillance society really erases law and rules and hypocritical bullshit. Tell me again how East Germany disposed of all its laws and rules.
I'm going to go right ahead and call this a totalitarian hell. Millions of Mrs. Grundys with always-on recording. Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.
There is no polite and law-abiding majority. There are too many laws and too many rules (many conflicting) associated with "polite".
You could make that objection, or similar ones, to any test which could be made. Incompleteness of evidence against the proposition that there is interference does not constitute evidence of interference.
Out of band radiation is practically impossible to avoid completely with electronic equipment; that's why there are standards greater than zero for such emissions.
It is still quite possible -- even likely -- that the software bug, or flight computer anomaly, is not caused by what the user thinks it was caused by. People are very good at finding patterns, but that includes spurious ones as well as real ones.
Or whatever the number is today not paying Federal Income Tax.
Sure, you can raise taxes on the 2% or the 1%, but first of all it won't get you much, because they're such a small part of the population, and second of all they can usually figure out way to avoid most of the bite. So you do that to great fanfare, then you quietly sock it to the bulk of us in the next follow-up bill.
A situation where (just over) half the country is paying all of the bills makes no sense. Before raising taxes on those of us who are, in fact, paying taxes, it's about time to impose taxes on the broad base of people who are not paying taxes. Mostly this means not raising rates, but cutting deductions and credits -- in particular, the darling of Republicans and Democrats alike, the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Nope, the overflowing toilet is more likely to be caused by a cell phone. A passenger could have tossed it in.
The article you quote (including the section you quote) indicates that
1) Boeing does not think there is interference from cell phones; all emissions outside the cell phone's operating frequency were within airplane equipment emissions limits. Airplane communications and navigation frequencies are separate from cell phone operating frequencies.
2) Anomalies observed in flight are NOT being reproduced in the lab, despite efforts to do so.
3) A mixed set of equipment powered from in-seat power produced emissions over airline limits, but no interference was observed, though Boeing believes it could occur at those levels.
Yes, this is the Homer of tablets.
I have a house built in 1960. The siding is the original cedar shake over plywood cladding. The insulation is fiberglass, though some is collapsed or missing. The wiring is 3-wire NM with a circuit-breaker panel (Square D, likely original); the outlets were originally 2 prong but the boxes were all grounded. No weather wrap; that came much later. Locally a lot of people have replaced the shakes with vinyl and added a weather wrap. The windows were indeed terrible, but no worse than anything which went before; they differed from wood single pane windows of the 1700s only in that they had a spring instead of weights; I replaced them with vinyl.
Houses of a similar age which didn't have shakes either had clapboard, wood panel siding, or asbestos siding (which might give you cancer but is quite durable). A few had stucco.
The worst modern houses were slightly later, with your pressed board siding (70s and 80s, not 50s and 60s, at least in this area), aluminum wiring (which if it weren't a disaster in the 70s, we'd likely be using now), and poly-butyl pipes (another '70s "innovation"). Also I suspect anything sided with fake stucco (EIFS) and cladded with OSB will end up being the "pressed board" of this era.
Still, as far as construction is concerned, I've never heard of any of these homes falling down due to structural inadequacy. Some sagging roofs due to inadequate support. There's plenty of 1920s homes around too; it's not clear at all that they're superior in construction. Superficially they've got creakier floors and stairs, and they too have their share of sagging roofs.
And now the views of all the RIAA attorneys aren't going to count. Sucks to be you.
No, it's impossible. Because the utility function is something like this
(increased utility due to use of devices) * (num passengers wanting to use devices) - (increased risk of crash) * (num flights) * (cost of crash)
You've got to show that this is greater than zero. But the authority-loving paternalists assign zero to the increased utility ("can't you just wait 15 minutes") while the hand-wringing nervous-nellies assign infinity to the cost of a crash, so even to get this equation to zero you have to show that the increased risk of a crash is zero -- which can't be done.
Of course. We (those of us in the US and Western Europe, anyway) have a stable system of government. What this means is that there are negative feedbacks in the system which counter any attempt to change it. Furthermore, the systems learn: When a tactic manages to overwhelm the existing feedback mechanisms and cause an actual change, new feedback mechanisms are set up to render that tactic ineffective in the future. Thus the more the system changes, the more stable it becomes.
It follows that any technique for change actually sanctioned by the system (such as voting) will not work, as those techniques have long since been countered. They still serve a purpose, however -- they waste the energy of those seeking change, and they present an excuse for barring other techniques.
I see two ways this could go wrong (assuming it works at all) -- the toddler robot could fall into the uncanny valley and cause revulsion. Or, it could mimic a toddler well enough to cause the normal reactions people have to toddlers not their own -- annoyance, irritation, revulsion, anger, etc.
All typical household bulbs, except the stupid neodymium ones (e.g. GE Reveal), have CRIs of 100. A few HIRs have CRIs in the high 90s.
Why would the US care? RTFS -- this is all about international revenue, not domestic revenue for the US company. The US will re-tax that money if and only if it is repatriated (which of course it likely never will be). It doesn't matter to the US whether the companies involved pay German tax, Irish tax, or Cayman Islands (no) tax on international revenue.
Then you pay for a cab, and the airport takes a cut.
Want something to wash that down with? The TSA won't let you have it, so you're stuck paying for it.
When I get my damn scroll arrows back in Lion, I'll believe that. That's sufficient reason not to "upgrade" from Snow Leopard.
Yep, when you adjust your theories to match the data after the fact, you can hit the target every time.
Raise the Jolly Roger.
An unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court will not mean the end of resale, even for imported items. It will mean the grey market (sale of items imported from other countries without the blessing of the manufacturer) will become illegal, but items bought from authorized resellers in the United States will still be able to resold.
I rather suspect the Supreme Court will be sharpening their knives and splitting this hair very fine, ruling against the importer but failing to provide guidance otherwise.
This is why slashdot needs a (+1, Troll).
...on behalf of gun rights advocates, for graphically illustrating one reason requiring gun registration is a bad idea.
Another thank you from Westchester & Rockland Organized Crime, Inc, both for providing homes to avoid for their junior members, and high-value targets for their more skilled housebreakers.
And since anti-spam blacklist maintainers are fanatics who only get more fanatical, they do tend towards blocking /0 as their endgame.
I suspect (without reading the patent, since this IS slashdot) you'll also find that the patent is non-instructive. That is, one skilled in the art could not learn, from the patent, how to implement the invention. They just threw up a bunch of likely techniques in the air without ironing out the remaining practical problems with them, and hope when someone else bothers to solve them, they can sue.
That's exactly the opposite of long tail. Long tail means the tail as a whole is significant, though any given item in it is quite small.
Yes. Because high performance code doesn't necessarily have to be "delicate". It does mean you can't copy objects around willy-nilly because you're afraid of mutability (functional languages, I'm looking at you). It means you probably don't want a garbage collector -- and if you do, you have to be just as careful about memory allocation as if you didn't, which kind of defeats the purpose. It means you can't just call std::do_something (or your language's equivalent) unless you know that std::do_something has decent performance for your class, which probably means you need to know more about its implementation than you'd prefer. You also have to know more about your compiler than you'd like, making sure you give it opportunities to optimize.
Sometimes you do need to resort to fragile and/or nonstandard tricks, but not often.
This is where C++ shines, as much as that turd can shine. You can write most of your code as clean, safe, and maintainable as possible (within the limits of C++; you're still in template hell), and go pretty much as nasty as you want in the tricky sections without leaving the language.