All this talk of wobbles, but the real nut is here:
[the] high frequency spectrum that the FCC recently said it would open up for 5G purposes is all above 24 GHz.
Above 24 GHz is Ka band, now favored for deep space communication. It has one issue that the article doesn't mention - it is blocked by rain. Look for your 5G bandwidth to drop significantly in a downpour.
Precisely. It is one thing if you are outside, doing something wrong, and a policeman happens to be walking or driving by and sees you and reacts. Suppose, instead, that there were police permanently stationed outside your house, watching your windows, and every time you left home they followed you everywhere you went. To claim that these cases are the same is simply nonsense, and is generally recognized as such. People who are treated like this tend to get very upset about it, and complain to the press, go to court, etc. The notion that technology changes everything, that this is all OK if the police department's machines, rather than their employees, track you every second, is also nonsense, but nonsense that is unfortunately not yet as generally recognized as such.
As it happens, I am writing this on a 4-year old MacBook Pro. It is fast and reliable and I have yet to find any Mac software I want that I cannot run. If I lost this one, I would definitely want to buy a replacement, but I don't feel a need to upgrade just because. Now, I know that having the latest-greatest CPU is cool, but what exactly would that buy me if I bought it?
An electronics exporter who violates ITAR and sells electronics abroad is not a secret agent, even if he misrepresented the purchases when he acquired those electronics.
And, how did he get this stuff? By "falsely claiming to be a traffic light manufacturer." Now, think about that for a second. The traffic lights in your neighborhood have "microprocessors which are frequently used in military systems, missile-guidance systems and detonation triggers" ? Well, they may (microprocessors can be put to many uses), but that doesn't mean that the traffic lights in your neighborhood contain secret military hardware. In fact, they certainly do not.
In other words, this guy was convicted of selling export-controlled hardware, which you can buy on the open market, not militarily secret hardware, which you cannot. There is a big difference (not least in that there near no exhaustive list of what is subject to ITAR control, and at times no easy way to determine if something is or is not export restricted), but you wouldn't know it from reading this article.
It's 111 pages, and it is tedious reading. It should be shortened by at least 50%, and if I were given the job of reviewing this, I would definitely recommend that.
Well, suppose you find an asteroid that is on a collision for the Earth. Is it 10 meters (probably not a problem) or 100 meters (a city buster) or 1 km (uh oh, we're in deep trouble) in diameter? You need a statistical means of determining its size to determine how much of a threat it could be, and a lot could be riding on the accuracy of that determination.
And your opinion is based on what? The moral and intellectual superiority of NASA?
Well, let's see. I work in asteroids, I know the WISE team, I have read their papers, and I think their response is quite reasonable. The WISE work has been compared to other data by a whole bunch of people (both professionals and amateurs - the amateur community makes a strong contribution to asteroid research). This is not a static thing - there are radar and stellar occultation observations of "new" asteroids on almost a weekly basis. These are routinely compared to the WISE results, and to other NEATM results. This is a very active field, and no one group dominates it.
I have criticized certain areas of asteroid research, but if some outsider comes in saying "you're doing it all wrong," does not appear to be up on the literature, and makes a variety of basic mistakes in their paper, I would not bet on the outsider.
Seriously, does this guy think the WISE team are a bunch of idiots? I'm personally not qualified to judge the details of the physical arguments in Myhrvold's paper, but I would give it high probability that he's full of shit.
He has never worked in this field, and (much more importantly) this paper is not standing up to scrutiny.
There is also the little detail he used his wealth and PR machinery to get this basically published in the New York Times, instead of sending it to a journal or at least a few researchers in the field for comments first.
In fact, from reading it, I doubt anyone reviewed it for him before he posted it who has the guts to tell him "no." That happens a lot with billionaires, which is exactly why they should be kept away from political power.
To put it mildly, this paper has not received a very good response on the Minor Planet Mailing List (MPML, a discussion group for asteroid researchers). Here is one example, from Dave Herald in Australia:
Turning now to a specific critique of Myhrvold's paper (which I find extremely tedious reading...) Fig 23 (on page 72!) is (from my perusal) the first (only?) point at which he presents diameters derived by his approach. It lists just three asteroids, and interestingly we have a single reasonably-well-determined occultation diameter for each of them. Importantly, for these three asteroids we have a measured diameter two compare against the two 'inferred' diameters, with the obvious ability to assess which inferred diameter is best in each case, and whether there is any consistency across different asteroids. To summarize the various results:
Asteroid # 208 306 757
NEOWISE 45.0km 51.6km 36.7km
Fig 23 146.5km 83.8km 6.6km
Occultations 48 x 42km 61 x 44 km 39 x 34km
Clearly the occultation results align extremely well with NOWISE. In contrast there is major disagreement with the results of the author's "bootstrap" solution - with strong implication that his bootstrap methodology is seriously flawed. IMHO the consequence of this on the paper as a whole doesn't need to be stated...
BuildTeam says it has no idea why Narey's review was reposted, but that it had nothing to do with it.
Of course they had something to do with it. They caused it to be there, to facilitate a DMCA takedown. The only real question is, do they have plausible deniability, or are they directly guilty?
If it is in the cloud, it is not smart. Having your house report everything you do to people you don't know with interests you don't share may or may not provide useful features, but it is definitely not smart.
Fox News spews lies morning, noon and night, and no one in Washington raises a peep. Now, this will be become the false scandal of the hour (a new one is needed, as Benghazi is fading, and it looks like the FBI won't deliver the goods on those email servers), so without doubt we'll being hearing about this ad infinitum for months.
Ever been in an accident? Of course our brains re-write history and try and make sense of the sense impressions given to them. Of course on a second by second basis the process is messy and we are not necessarily the best reporters of what is going on in our heads. On the shortest time scales, there is little to no free will, as there is literally no time to think.
By the way, free will is about the ability to make choices. Conscious versus subconscious is about how the choices are made.
Slashdot Mirror
All this talk of wobbles, but the real nut is here:
Above 24 GHz is Ka band, now favored for deep space communication. It has one issue that the article doesn't mention - it is blocked by rain. Look for your 5G bandwidth to drop significantly in a downpour.
"nut because" - There is more to proof-reading than spell checking.
Precisely. It is one thing if you are outside, doing something wrong, and a policeman happens to be walking or driving by and sees you and reacts. Suppose, instead, that there were police permanently stationed outside your house, watching your windows, and every time you left home they followed you everywhere you went. To claim that these cases are the same is simply nonsense, and is generally recognized as such. People who are treated like this tend to get very upset about it, and complain to the press, go to court, etc. The notion that technology changes everything, that this is all OK if the police department's machines, rather than their employees, track you every second, is also nonsense, but nonsense that is unfortunately not yet as generally recognized as such.
As it happens, I am writing this on a 4-year old MacBook Pro. It is fast and reliable and I have yet to find any Mac software I want that I cannot run. If I lost this one, I would definitely want to buy a replacement, but I don't feel a need to upgrade just because. Now, I know that having the latest-greatest CPU is cool, but what exactly would that buy me if I bought it?
Are you serious, or just the average clueless American?
This is slashdot; what do you expect?
An electronics exporter who violates ITAR and sells electronics abroad is not a secret agent, even if he misrepresented the purchases when he acquired those electronics.
And, how did he get this stuff? By "falsely claiming to be a traffic light manufacturer." Now, think about that for a second. The traffic lights in your neighborhood have "microprocessors which are frequently used in military systems, missile-guidance systems and detonation triggers" ? Well, they may (microprocessors can be put to many uses), but that doesn't mean that the traffic lights in your neighborhood contain secret military hardware. In fact, they certainly do not.
In other words, this guy was convicted of selling export-controlled hardware, which you can buy on the open market, not militarily secret hardware, which you cannot. There is a big difference (not least in that there near no exhaustive list of what is subject to ITAR control, and at times no easy way to determine if something is or is not export restricted), but you wouldn't know it from reading this article.
I don't want it, and would never connect a TV to the network anyway.
The following sentence shows the appropriate capitalization.
The internetworking protocol of the Internet is the internet.
Very nice review.
It's 111 pages, and it is tedious reading. It should be shortened by at least 50%, and if I were given the job of reviewing this, I would definitely recommend that.
Well, suppose you find an asteroid that is on a collision for the Earth. Is it 10 meters (probably not a problem) or 100 meters (a city buster) or 1 km (uh oh, we're in deep trouble) in diameter? You need a statistical means of determining its size to determine how much of a threat it could be, and a lot could be riding on the accuracy of that determination.
Well, let's see. I work in asteroids, I know the WISE team, I have read their papers, and I think their response is quite reasonable. The WISE work has been compared to other data by a whole bunch of people (both professionals and amateurs - the amateur community makes a strong contribution to asteroid research). This is not a static thing - there are radar and stellar occultation observations of "new" asteroids on almost a weekly basis. These are routinely compared to the WISE results, and to other NEATM results. This is a very active field, and no one group dominates it.
I have criticized certain areas of asteroid research, but if some outsider comes in saying "you're doing it all wrong," does not appear to be up on the literature, and makes a variety of basic mistakes in their paper, I would not bet on the outsider.
I am, and you are correct.
He has never worked in this field, and (much more importantly) this paper is not standing up to scrutiny.
There is also the little detail he used his wealth and PR machinery to get this basically published in the New York Times, instead of sending it to a journal or at least a few researchers in the field for comments first.
In fact, from reading it, I doubt anyone reviewed it for him before he posted it who has the guts to tell him "no." That happens a lot with billionaires, which is exactly why they should be kept away from political power.
Maybe so, but he wrote a really crappy asteroid paper.
Of course they had something to do with it. They caused it to be there, to facilitate a DMCA takedown. The only real question is, do they have plausible deniability, or are they directly guilty?
If it is in the cloud, it is not smart. Having your house report everything you do to people you don't know with interests you don't share may or may not provide useful features, but it is definitely not smart.
Employees Struggle To Find Workers Who Want to Take A Drug Test
There, fixed that headline for you.
The LA Times attacks on Tesla and Musk are nothing but a poorly researched hatchet job, probably funded by the fossil fuel industry ...
Maybe so, but the Mercury News and the LA Times are owed by different companies, and this story is by the Mercury News.
In business, whenever you have to ask "why?" the answer is almost always "money."
You don't understand how false scandals work. No one cares about logic or validity of arguments, the sound of things is the only thing that counts.
Fox News spews lies morning, noon and night, and no one in Washington raises a peep. Now, this will be become the false scandal of the hour (a new one is needed, as Benghazi is fading, and it looks like the FBI won't deliver the goods on those email servers), so without doubt we'll being hearing about this ad infinitum for months.
Yes.
Ever been in an accident? Of course our brains re-write history and try and make sense of the sense impressions given to them. Of course on a second by second basis the process is messy and we are not necessarily the best reporters of what is going on in our heads. On the shortest time scales, there is little to no free will, as there is literally no time to think.
By the way, free will is about the ability to make choices. Conscious versus subconscious is about how the choices are made.