Simple: funding. It's similar to how negative results get such a poor reception. Journals, funding agencies, tenure committees, don't want to hear "we didn't discover what we were hoping to find" and they're only slightly more receptive to "we discovered exactly what we expected". They like to hear "man! you'll be as surprised as we were when you hear what we found."
A subtle attempt to shift blame to the people that bought this piece of (apparent) junk, ""This occurred after the [family] connected the duplicate camera to their network and ignored the warning prompt that notified: 'Camera is already paired to an account' and left the camera running," she added."
'Camera is already paired to an account'? Could mean it's already been paired to my account and I'm trying to re-pair it. Could be a message indicating success – that you've paired it to the intended account. I'm sure the company will claim this message's meaning is crystal clear and that the people who bought it are partially to blame. I'm not buying that (the dodge or the webcam).
My last name is Morrison, so count me as being a bit sensitive to this – the original article identifies this particular Darwin award winner as Benjamin D. Morrow (not Morrison).
It'll be a great reassurance to the bank to know that the bad guys can't get into the vault by holding up an eyeball they've "liberated" from the bank manager. However, it'll be little comfort to the now eyeless bank manager if the bad guys haven't kept themselves abreast of the developments in dead eye detection, or if they decide to give it a go anyway. If some bit of your anatomy holds the biometric keys to something of value, then in addition to all the other problems that get mentioned about biometrics, you're counting on every lunatic out there with a sharpened spoon or a pair of garden shears knowing that it's pointless to scoop out your eye or lop off your thumb. Not very reassuring.
Yes, but if you work in a large collaboration then your analysis ought to past muster with a larger audience than just your supervisor. And don't dismiss "the guy who has to work on my code later" so blithely. It depends where your code sits in the analysis chain, but it might have quite a long life ahead of it. I've seen (and had to deal with) plenty of code written by long-gone graduate students.
After taking into account all the tax breaks and kickbacks from the local utility, it's about a 10-12 year payback period. I think that length of time is right at the limit of what people in the US might consider.
Here's a link to the presentation by Jordin Kare you're thinking about: http://www.isr.us/spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf.
One point he makes is that, to a large degree, propellent costs are irrelevant to the economics of lifting payloads to earth orbits. Space elevators satisfy a desire for technological elegance we all share, but they don't really seem so interesting when you examine their economics.
Temporal dyslexia, maybe? April. May. June.
Here's a news story about the event: http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/news/clips/Arc hive/Apr2002/043002/043002larry.html
Check out the book "An Anthropologist on Mars" by Oliver Sacks for a case study of just a person. Here's a site which has a very short synopsis of Sacks' book and, in particular, of the case of "Virgil":
http://www.oliversacks.com/mars.html
Curious to know where the number 60 Mbps was found. The only information I see in the referenced article says the following:
VDSL data-access rates vary depending on the length and condition of a line, from 26 Mbit/s symmetrical over about 1,000 feet, down to 6.5 Mbits/s symmetrical at approximately 5,000 feet.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: funding. It's similar to how negative results get such a poor reception. Journals, funding agencies, tenure committees, don't want to hear "we didn't discover what we were hoping to find" and they're only slightly more receptive to "we discovered exactly what we expected". They like to hear "man! you'll be as surprised as we were when you hear what we found."
A subtle attempt to shift blame to the people that bought this piece of (apparent) junk, ""This occurred after the [family] connected the duplicate camera to their network and ignored the warning prompt that notified: 'Camera is already paired to an account' and left the camera running," she added."
'Camera is already paired to an account'? Could mean it's already been paired to my account and I'm trying to re-pair it. Could be a message indicating success – that you've paired it to the intended account. I'm sure the company will claim this message's meaning is crystal clear and that the people who bought it are partially to blame. I'm not buying that (the dodge or the webcam).
My last name is Morrison, so count me as being a bit sensitive to this – the original article identifies this particular Darwin award winner as Benjamin D. Morrow (not Morrison).
It'll be a great reassurance to the bank to know that the bad guys can't get into the vault by holding up an eyeball they've "liberated" from the bank manager. However, it'll be little comfort to the now eyeless bank manager if the bad guys haven't kept themselves abreast of the developments in dead eye detection, or if they decide to give it a go anyway. If some bit of your anatomy holds the biometric keys to something of value, then in addition to all the other problems that get mentioned about biometrics, you're counting on every lunatic out there with a sharpened spoon or a pair of garden shears knowing that it's pointless to scoop out your eye or lop off your thumb. Not very reassuring.
bad OCR: persons. Same deal for the "arcular" whatever: circular.
s/waived/waved/ – it makes a difference.
Yes, but if you work in a large collaboration then your analysis ought to past muster with a larger audience than just your supervisor. And don't dismiss "the guy who has to work on my code later" so blithely. It depends where your code sits in the analysis chain, but it might have quite a long life ahead of it. I've seen (and had to deal with) plenty of code written by long-gone graduate students.
I'll grant you it was a very shapely creature, but it was supposed to be a silicon-based life form, not silicone.
Here's a page that runs the numbers for a solar PV system on Long Island, NY:
http://www.majesticsonli.com/7.html
After taking into account all the tax breaks and kickbacks from the local utility, it's about a 10-12 year payback period. I think that length of time is right at the limit of what people in the US might consider.
Here's a link to the presentation by Jordin Kare you're thinking about: http://www.isr.us/spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare /Workshop2_kare.pdf.
One point he makes is that, to a large degree, propellent costs are irrelevant to the economics of lifting payloads to earth orbits. Space elevators satisfy a desire for technological elegance we all share, but they don't really seem so interesting when you examine their economics.
Temporal dyslexia, maybe? April. May. June. Here's a news story about the event: http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/news/clips/Arc hive/Apr2002/043002/043002larry.html
Check out the book "An Anthropologist on Mars" by Oliver Sacks for a case study of just a person. Here's a site which has a very short synopsis of Sacks' book and, in particular, of the case of "Virgil": http://www.oliversacks.com/mars.html
Curious to know where the number 60 Mbps was found. The only information I see in the referenced article says the following:
VDSL data-access rates vary depending on the
length and condition of a line, from 26 Mbit/s
symmetrical over about 1,000 feet, down to 6.5
Mbits/s symmetrical at approximately 5,000 feet.
Not that I'd complain about 6.5 Mbps.