It's machine learning. So the researches trained the AI with what they think is "abusive" or "problematic". What would be really useful is to see one of the twitter feeds with the tweets they deem as problematic or abusive flagged as such. Or just click a button and take us to a random one of the million abusive or problematic tweets so we could see what they're talking about. What I saw looking through those pages were just two sample images with a lot of content blocked out. Show us the data, machine learning doesn't mean squat unless you know exactly how they were trained.
Our own solar system would not look like it to aliens from another star using a Kepler-like detection system. Because the orbits of the planets in our system have different inclinations, even if they could detect one of our planets the chances are small that they could detect another. In fact they would never be able to detect more than 3 of our planets using that method (Mercury+Earth+Mars or Mercury+Venus+Saturn). About 95% of the time when they could see one planet transit they wouldn't be able to see any others.
Also the mission as it is would not have detected any planets past mars. It has only been operational since 2009 and requires two transits to confirm, so planets like Jupiter with a 11 year orbit and Saturn with a 29 year orbit could not have been detected.
So these systems where we've detected multiple planets are actually unlike our own system, having many planets that are close to their star and in the same plane. The systems where only a planet or two have been detected are probably more like our own system, we have no way to tell if there are other planets with different inclinations or further out.
'kilobytes' I'm assuming means less than a megabyte. Let's round up and say 8 million bits of information. At 24fps there are about 130,000 frames in a 90 minute movie. That means each frame is encoded in about 61 bits, less than 8 bytes, 0x0000000000000000 to 0x1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF in hex. That's about 1.4 kilobits per second, 1/8th what you need for quite horrible sounding audio only compression. Someone isn't thinking straight...
Every time an app prompts me to review it, I go to the app store and leave it a 1* review. I'll say in the review why I did it. I have apps that update often and ask me for a review every time. I hope Apple's API will prevent that prompt if you've already rated an app.
You'll have to deal with a clunky interface and menu, silly single-player missions, brain-dead A.I., bizarre vehicle physics, horrible net code, dull graphics and sound, and more bugs than a Georgia swamp in June
This and many of the other reviews make it sound like at the time it was released it was a buggy mess. Reviewers said that the single player was worthless (you don't say), and that the multiplayer net code was so bad that players and vehicles would warp all the time. Maybe this has improved with patches over the last ten years.
At the time there was a backlash against publishers that would ship games early that were full of bugs. Many reviewers would only review based on the initial release version in response, to get the publishers to stop releasing games early and treating paying customers like beta testers. It sounds like if the game is so much fun to play, it may have fallen victim to the publisher's decision to release it before it was ready.
Nice of them to run these benchmarks, but a little better analysis would be nice. Like the Oort Online test. Chrome got 9960 and Firefox "left it in the dust" with 10,000. That's 0.4%. The difference in frame rate would be 59.76 fps vs 60.00 fps if the results are translatable.
Also, I doubt their results are generalizable across all computers. I just ran the peacekeeper benchmark on all three browsers on my laptop and chrome won.
Just take all benchmark results with a grain of salt, especially ones where all are withing 1% of each other. Saying "Edge won 4 out of 8 benchmarks" is virtually meaningless.
Providing a passcode is testimony because by it's nature it proves you know the password and have access to the device. The government must prove that you have access to that device. That can also get you into a catch-22 because what if you don't know the password, and what if the device isn't yours? Touching your finger to a sensor is something they can do to any suspect, guilty or innocent. The fact that your finger is the one that unlocks the phone does prove that you have access to it, but that is not forcing you to incriminate yourself anymore than giving a DNA sample or your fingerprints "incriminate" you if they match the evidence the police already have. You might as well argue against letting eye-witnesses see you in a lineup because that would incriminate you.
It seems that many people don't understand the purpose of the right against self incrimination. Hundreds of years ago it was common to force people to confess to crimes even using torture and that was the primary means of getting a conviction. The police would (hopefully) figure out who they think probably committed a crime and just browbeat or torture them until they confessed. You shouldn't have to answer any questions that relate to knowledge that may provide evidence against you. There is no protection against harmlessly making you do something to allow evidence to be interpreted, such as standing in a line-up, getting your fingerprints, getting a dna sample, getting dental impressions to match to bite marks, getting hair samples, getting your blood for blood type testing, etc. That would include placing your finger on a sensor.
The problem is that the FBI wouldn't want to turn over their private decryption keys and algorithms. "forensically sound" means you can turn over exact details, like mentioned in the transcript they can turn over the exact bit stream received by the FBI, and the defense experts can compile the source code used and run the program on the defendants computer and see that it produces the same exact data. If the FBI turned over an encrypted bit stream of data and not the decryption keys, there would be no link the the unencrypted evidence the FBI wanted to show in court, hence it wouldn't be as forensically sound.
The article doesn't seem to be about them DEcrypting data, but sending UNencrypted data over the internet that could have been altered en-route to where they collected it. Seems like they had gotten users to install malware and send back (unencrypted) data to the FBI to identify them. The point brought up is that someone else could alter that data en-route to make it seem l ike some innocent (they say "unconvicted" but wouldn't all of the suspects be "unconvicted" before trial?) person may have been involved.
Seems like the article was written by someone with little knowledge of computers, the legal system, or the English language.
There are a lot of youtube videos in there that I didn't watch (country music videos from VEVO stations). I wonder if someone isn't embedding silent invisible players in web pages somewhere to drive ad revenue...
Who pays who and how much is based on supply and demand, not anybody's ideology of what should be free. It's why sometimes I have to pay to rent a room for special events, and other times people pay me to show up to do effectively the same event.
It's like me getting a taxi from the airport to my hotel. The fare will be the same to me either way, but the driver will take me directly to my hotel if the hotel has an agreement with him, otherwise the driver will drive around aimlessly for two hours. There's nothing I can do about it even though I'm the one paying for the taxi ride because the government gave that taxi company a near monopoly in that city. Now all the taxis start taking people to the hotels that pay them on the back end and when I want to get a ride to my family's house there isn't a taxi available for an hour. When a new hotel opens with a great business model that can deliver lower prices and a great experience, they can't compete because the ride to and from there is so slow that they will get bad reviews and nobody will want to come.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that places you go on the internet already pay for their own hosting and internet access. I supposedly pay my local ISP for access to any destination I want to go to on the internet, and I shouldn't be slowed down because I want to go to certain sites. ISPs should be in the business of passing packets around in the most efficient way for their customers. Giving them two sets of customers (one on the front end and one on the back) is clearly a conflict of interest.
I haven't seen the actual agreement, but it sounds like the company is going against the spirit of the agreement. They were supposed to get a television series produced, probably which would have made a portion of the generated funds go back to the estate. They had seven years to do it, then the rights would revert back to the estate so they could find someone that could get it done.
In trying to keep the rights despite that clause in the contract, they paid for a "pilot" episode to be created themselves, then paid the network to broadcast the episode in a infomercial time-slot. It seems to be to be a weak attempt to hold onto the rights and deprive the estate of the opportunity to actually produce a TV series, something the plaintiffs seem incapable of.
While that relates to the orbital speed calculated for the mass and radius of 0.4642m/s, it is far less than the escape velocity of 0.6565m/s. So how far out would it go?
The numbers are so small that if you take the speed they are moving of 0.5157m/s tangental to the surface and point it straight upwards and accelerate it with the gravity of 0.0003315m/s/s then it would come to a stand-still in somewhere over 1600seconds at a height somewhere over 800m and fall back towards the asteroid.
I don't know the maths to figure out the exact values since they vary so greatly with distance, but the difference in centrifugal and gravitational force is only 0.00007765m/s/s. That means that something weighing 100 TONS on earth would have a net upward force of about 1.6 pounds. Of course you can't treat the asteroid as discrete frictionless atoms. What holds a dirt clod together overcoming the full force of earth's gravity to maintain it's shape?
So if you were attached to the surface and dropped a rock it seems to me that it should continue upwards and orbit the asteroid at some altitude. It doesn't surprise me though that since dust can stick to my ceiling and ceiling fan blades even when they're whirring around that this asteroid can stick together.
Please read the "skeptical" article with a skeptical eye. The poor guy goes through all the work to get the specs and highlights the minimum wind speed rate of 4m/s for the turbines to work. He also links to an excellent page showing wind patters and letting you see wind speed across the country.
But then, he goes off the rails. He can "tell from his own experience" that the wind doesn't always blow that fast and "look at all the blue, which means low wind speed". The big problem is that he didn't go one extra step and actually click on the map to check wind speeds. Almost all of the blue is above the required 4m/s for the turbines. The green is actually too fast. The maximum wind speeds for the turbines are 25m/s and the green areas are over 30.
Poor guy, how embarassing for him. That could have been avoided with a few clicks.
Go to any programming conference and check the ratio of men to women. Only about 1 in 5 software engineers are women. It's an incentive to get more girls interested in programming. Nowhere are boys barred from the classes or are there penalties for male students. If preference was given to the group that already enjoyed an overwhelming majority then it would certainly be discrimination, but offering an incentive to overcome whatever discrimination must already be occurring to create the gap is not.
To do this, it makes an extra request to the server before requesting the appropriate image size.
This seems completely wrong, how did it get rated 5-Informative? One of the primary purposes is to use less bandwidth. Responsive images just tells the browser to load a different image based on screen size or pixel density, there's no extra request to the server.
Supporting a traditional definition of marriage is not the same as treating people with disrespect
Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Oppressing people is fine as long as they're the ones you think should be oppressed or because oppressing them is traditional?
All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. If 90% of the country was gay and forbade you from marrying a person of the opposite gender because marriage had always been for same-sex couples, would you feel oppressed? If a gay person's spouse could visit them in the hospital, could claim tax write-offs and could inherit easily from their spouse and make medical decisions for them, but you were denied those things because your marriage was considered nontraditional, would you feel oppressed?
I got my 27" 2560x1440 monitor on ebay for under $280 (shipped) a few months ago, prices seem to be a little higher now but not that bad. The ~109dpi gives a slightly smoother image also (24" 1080p is ~92 and 30" 2560x1600 is ~100). I hadn't noticed pixelation on my other monitors before but side-by-side it's easy. 4k@28" is overkill dpi-wise unless you're putting your face 6" from the monitor to get that surround feel:)
You have 1120 bits, which is usually used for 160 7-bit characters. Some countries use 16-bit characters and get only 70. GSM handsets can be set to use 8-bit characters and are limited to 140. That's why I always thought the limit was 140.
Slashdot Mirror
It's machine learning. So the researches trained the AI with what they think is "abusive" or "problematic". What would be really useful is to see one of the twitter feeds with the tweets they deem as problematic or abusive flagged as such. Or just click a button and take us to a random one of the million abusive or problematic tweets so we could see what they're talking about. What I saw looking through those pages were just two sample images with a lot of content blocked out. Show us the data, machine learning doesn't mean squat unless you know exactly how they were trained.
Our own solar system would not look like it to aliens from another star using a Kepler-like detection system. Because the orbits of the planets in our system have different inclinations, even if they could detect one of our planets the chances are small that they could detect another. In fact they would never be able to detect more than 3 of our planets using that method (Mercury+Earth+Mars or Mercury+Venus+Saturn). About 95% of the time when they could see one planet transit they wouldn't be able to see any others.
Also the mission as it is would not have detected any planets past mars. It has only been operational since 2009 and requires two transits to confirm, so planets like Jupiter with a 11 year orbit and Saturn with a 29 year orbit could not have been detected.
So these systems where we've detected multiple planets are actually unlike our own system, having many planets that are close to their star and in the same plane. The systems where only a planet or two have been detected are probably more like our own system, we have no way to tell if there are other planets with different inclinations or further out.
Clone git repository, edit file in Visual Studio, commit, now file is treated as a binary file in git because VS saved it with UTF-8 byte-order-mark.
'kilobytes' I'm assuming means less than a megabyte. Let's round up and say 8 million bits of information. At 24fps there are about 130,000 frames in a 90 minute movie. That means each frame is encoded in about 61 bits, less than 8 bytes, 0x0000000000000000 to 0x1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF in hex. That's about 1.4 kilobits per second, 1/8th what you need for quite horrible sounding audio only compression. Someone isn't thinking straight...
Every time an app prompts me to review it, I go to the app store and leave it a 1* review. I'll say in the review why I did it. I have apps that update often and ask me for a review every time. I hope Apple's API will prevent that prompt if you've already rated an app.
This and many of the other reviews make it sound like at the time it was released it was a buggy mess. Reviewers said that the single player was worthless (you don't say), and that the multiplayer net code was so bad that players and vehicles would warp all the time. Maybe this has improved with patches over the last ten years.
At the time there was a backlash against publishers that would ship games early that were full of bugs. Many reviewers would only review based on the initial release version in response, to get the publishers to stop releasing games early and treating paying customers like beta testers. It sounds like if the game is so much fun to play, it may have fallen victim to the publisher's decision to release it before it was ready.
Nice of them to run these benchmarks, but a little better analysis would be nice. Like the Oort Online test. Chrome got 9960 and Firefox "left it in the dust" with 10,000. That's 0.4%. The difference in frame rate would be 59.76 fps vs 60.00 fps if the results are translatable.
Also, I doubt their results are generalizable across all computers. I just ran the peacekeeper benchmark on all three browsers on my laptop and chrome won.
Just take all benchmark results with a grain of salt, especially ones where all are withing 1% of each other. Saying "Edge won 4 out of 8 benchmarks" is virtually meaningless.
Providing a passcode is testimony because by it's nature it proves you know the password and have access to the device. The government must prove that you have access to that device. That can also get you into a catch-22 because what if you don't know the password, and what if the device isn't yours? Touching your finger to a sensor is something they can do to any suspect, guilty or innocent. The fact that your finger is the one that unlocks the phone does prove that you have access to it, but that is not forcing you to incriminate yourself anymore than giving a DNA sample or your fingerprints "incriminate" you if they match the evidence the police already have. You might as well argue against letting eye-witnesses see you in a lineup because that would incriminate you.
It seems that many people don't understand the purpose of the right against self incrimination. Hundreds of years ago it was common to force people to confess to crimes even using torture and that was the primary means of getting a conviction. The police would (hopefully) figure out who they think probably committed a crime and just browbeat or torture them until they confessed. You shouldn't have to answer any questions that relate to knowledge that may provide evidence against you. There is no protection against harmlessly making you do something to allow evidence to be interpreted, such as standing in a line-up, getting your fingerprints, getting a dna sample, getting dental impressions to match to bite marks, getting hair samples, getting your blood for blood type testing, etc. That would include placing your finger on a sensor.
The problem is that the FBI wouldn't want to turn over their private decryption keys and algorithms. "forensically sound" means you can turn over exact details, like mentioned in the transcript they can turn over the exact bit stream received by the FBI, and the defense experts can compile the source code used and run the program on the defendants computer and see that it produces the same exact data. If the FBI turned over an encrypted bit stream of data and not the decryption keys, there would be no link the the unencrypted evidence the FBI wanted to show in court, hence it wouldn't be as forensically sound.
The article doesn't seem to be about them DEcrypting data, but sending UNencrypted data over the internet that could have been altered en-route to where they collected it. Seems like they had gotten users to install malware and send back (unencrypted) data to the FBI to identify them. The point brought up is that someone else could alter that data en-route to make it seem l ike some innocent (they say "unconvicted" but wouldn't all of the suspects be "unconvicted" before trial?) person may have been involved. Seems like the article was written by someone with little knowledge of computers, the legal system, or the English language.
There are a lot of youtube videos in there that I didn't watch (country music videos from VEVO stations). I wonder if someone isn't embedding silent invisible players in web pages somewhere to drive ad revenue...
Unless by "stealing musing" you mean actually stealing physical media, it isn't theft. That's like taking a person's picture being called kidnapping.
It's like me getting a taxi from the airport to my hotel. The fare will be the same to me either way, but the driver will take me directly to my hotel if the hotel has an agreement with him, otherwise the driver will drive around aimlessly for two hours. There's nothing I can do about it even though I'm the one paying for the taxi ride because the government gave that taxi company a near monopoly in that city. Now all the taxis start taking people to the hotels that pay them on the back end and when I want to get a ride to my family's house there isn't a taxi available for an hour. When a new hotel opens with a great business model that can deliver lower prices and a great experience, they can't compete because the ride to and from there is so slow that they will get bad reviews and nobody will want to come.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that places you go on the internet already pay for their own hosting and internet access. I supposedly pay my local ISP for access to any destination I want to go to on the internet, and I shouldn't be slowed down because I want to go to certain sites. ISPs should be in the business of passing packets around in the most efficient way for their customers. Giving them two sets of customers (one on the front end and one on the back) is clearly a conflict of interest.
I haven't seen the actual agreement, but it sounds like the company is going against the spirit of the agreement. They were supposed to get a television series produced, probably which would have made a portion of the generated funds go back to the estate. They had seven years to do it, then the rights would revert back to the estate so they could find someone that could get it done. In trying to keep the rights despite that clause in the contract, they paid for a "pilot" episode to be created themselves, then paid the network to broadcast the episode in a infomercial time-slot. It seems to be to be a weak attempt to hold onto the rights and deprive the estate of the opportunity to actually produce a TV series, something the plaintiffs seem incapable of.
The article makes it sound like it doesn't matter what size or mass.
Parameters: Radius 650m, Circumference 4084m, Period 7560s, Speed 0.5157m/s, Mass 2.1e12kg
Calculating Surface Gravity = 0.0003315m/s/s.
Centrifugal Force = 0.00040915m/s/s
While that relates to the orbital speed calculated for the mass and radius of 0.4642m/s, it is far less than the escape velocity of 0.6565m/s. So how far out would it go?
The numbers are so small that if you take the speed they are moving of 0.5157m/s tangental to the surface and point it straight upwards and accelerate it with the gravity of 0.0003315m/s/s then it would come to a stand-still in somewhere over 1600seconds at a height somewhere over 800m and fall back towards the asteroid.
I don't know the maths to figure out the exact values since they vary so greatly with distance, but the difference in centrifugal and gravitational force is only 0.00007765m/s/s. That means that something weighing 100 TONS on earth would have a net upward force of about 1.6 pounds. Of course you can't treat the asteroid as discrete frictionless atoms. What holds a dirt clod together overcoming the full force of earth's gravity to maintain it's shape?
So if you were attached to the surface and dropped a rock it seems to me that it should continue upwards and orbit the asteroid at some altitude. It doesn't surprise me though that since dust can stick to my ceiling and ceiling fan blades even when they're whirring around that this asteroid can stick together.
Ok, I've looked at it more and it is more like 1/3 - 1/2 what looks blue than 'nearly all', but still...
Please read the "skeptical" article with a skeptical eye. The poor guy goes through all the work to get the specs and highlights the minimum wind speed rate of 4m/s for the turbines to work. He also links to an excellent page showing wind patters and letting you see wind speed across the country.
But then, he goes off the rails. He can "tell from his own experience" that the wind doesn't always blow that fast and "look at all the blue, which means low wind speed". The big problem is that he didn't go one extra step and actually click on the map to check wind speeds. Almost all of the blue is above the required 4m/s for the turbines. The green is actually too fast. The maximum wind speeds for the turbines are 25m/s and the green areas are over 30.
Poor guy, how embarassing for him. That could have been avoided with a few clicks.
Go to any programming conference and check the ratio of men to women. Only about 1 in 5 software engineers are women. It's an incentive to get more girls interested in programming. Nowhere are boys barred from the classes or are there penalties for male students. If preference was given to the group that already enjoyed an overwhelming majority then it would certainly be discrimination, but offering an incentive to overcome whatever discrimination must already be occurring to create the gap is not.
To do this, it makes an extra request to the server before requesting the appropriate image size.
This seems completely wrong, how did it get rated 5-Informative? One of the primary purposes is to use less bandwidth. Responsive images just tells the browser to load a different image based on screen size or pixel density, there's no extra request to the server.
When are they launching the mission to check the other side of mars for a rock shaped like 'merica?
Supporting a traditional definition of marriage is not the same as treating people with disrespect
Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Oppressing people is fine as long as they're the ones you think should be oppressed or because oppressing them is traditional?
All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. If 90% of the country was gay and forbade you from marrying a person of the opposite gender because marriage had always been for same-sex couples, would you feel oppressed? If a gay person's spouse could visit them in the hospital, could claim tax write-offs and could inherit easily from their spouse and make medical decisions for them, but you were denied those things because your marriage was considered nontraditional, would you feel oppressed?
He did say the Klan of the 21st century, if there have been tons of lynchings since 2000 on they are keeping it very quiet.
A new 27"@2560*1440 costs about US$500 and up.
I got my 27" 2560x1440 monitor on ebay for under $280 (shipped) a few months ago, prices seem to be a little higher now but not that bad. The ~109dpi gives a slightly smoother image also (24" 1080p is ~92 and 30" 2560x1600 is ~100). I hadn't noticed pixelation on my other monitors before but side-by-side it's easy. 4k@28" is overkill dpi-wise unless you're putting your face 6" from the monitor to get that surround feel :)
You have 1120 bits, which is usually used for 160 7-bit characters. Some countries use 16-bit characters and get only 70. GSM handsets can be set to use 8-bit characters and are limited to 140. That's why I always thought the limit was 140.
Yes it's the closest approach, but it's still going to be 3.2 million km away. If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the asteroid would be 560 feet away and only 1/5 the size of a pixel in an iPhone retina display. The 0.017 arcsecond angular resolution requires a 6.6 meter telescope to see more than just a point of light.. And as for "hurtling past Earth" as some reports say, if it were heading straight for earth at 27,000 miles per hour it would take 73.5 hours or more than 3 days to get here. In our scaled example it would be travelling at a whopping 0.00255 km/h, under 1/10th the speed of a garden snail. The asteroid should have close to the same visibility for many hours around the time of closest approach. Right now (5 hours before) it could at most be 2% smaller through a telescope..
I think it's cool, I just wish the articles wouldn't hype so much and would include more context.