An why would this be more a problem for flights in a stratospheric balloon than for any other kind of manned "spaceflight" flight? Do we see a "cancer cluster" in this population?
But let me quote your link : "...and the risks from cosmic radiation do not warrant changing your travel plans to reduce your exposure."
Or it's coming from someone understanding between a controlled landing, albeit not on a runway, and an uncontrolled flight into terrain... or crash, if you prefer.
Just a quick word from a canadian living in Germany...
The issue with Canada is not that the citizen do not vote for other parties or politicien. The issue is that, due to the electoral system, a party can get the majority of the seats with less than 40% of the popular vote. So in fact, Canadian chose to vote for someone else, and, quite ironically, because of this popular decision, the conservatives were promoted from a minortiy government to a majority government.
In Germany, the politcal and electoral system is quite different. But your assessment that a coalition colapsed is quite far from what is going on here. Yes, one of the coalition parties was trown out. The conservatives (which is quite a relative word when compared to the canadian conservatives or, *gasp*, the american conservatives) were already quite strong after the last election and could build a coalition with one of the smaller parties, the liberals, which allowed them to achieve the majority in the Bundestag. Since the last election, the liberals had been acting like assholes and showed themself as lobyist mor than liberals. They also failed to pass their only real electoral promess of reducing taxes, which was the only reason why people voted for them in the first place. All thing considered, it shouldn't surprise anyone they got thrown out. Even the conservatives told their electorate to give their two votes (in germany, you vote for a direct mandate - someone representing your county - and a seconde vote, where you vote for a party. The liberals only got seats through this seconde popular vote) to them. Basically, the the coaliation leader campaign against their coaliation partner.
So saying that the coaliation collapsed is a bit strange in this context. The conservatives got almost all everything back what the liberals lost and ended just under the majority. Of course, they lost this hand and now must either build a coaliation or a minortiy government (which is unusual).
But I would say that democracy is very healthy here compared in a lot of places in the west. Of course, the economy, infrastructures and the social structure are in very good shape in Germany, what helps for stability.
Why don't we ever get articles like this one on slashdot?
Because it is solly based on a false premise.
Global warming has slowed since 1998 even though humans spewing ever more greenhouse gases are almost certainly to blame for damaging the atmosphere.
This statement is based on, they say a report summary...
That’s according to a 36-page summary of a report from a United Nations panel released in Stockholm today concluding Earth’s temperature since 1998 has increased at less than half the pace of longer-term averages since 1951.
The statement made by the article is never explicitely made in this report. On the contrary already on page 3, it is explained why a statement such as the one made in the article is, while true in a specific context, is missleading due to local variations in observed trends. If you look carfully at figure SPM-1 and the statement made on page SPM-3 (3), you will not only see that the author of the article missunderstood the statement made, but even inverted completly its interpretation and meaning.
The report states that the trend evaluate between 1998 and 2012 is slower thant the rate evaluate between 1951 and 2012. This trend variation is fully explained by a local change in temperature variation due to a strong El Nino over the 1960-1990 period and has nothing to do with global warming.
Ironically, the journalist missunderstood (deliberatly or not) the explanation why the use of local trend is missleading in understanding climate change and used the missleading trend stated as example of trend not to use to base is thesis on. I couldn't write "Wooooosh" loud enough.
And we should see more such nicely writte article on/. Yeah, that would be awesome.
Of course, that statement was specifically and uniquely directed at the multi-touch technology and the iphone screen, which has nothing to do with this patent issue. But meh... What would be a good headline without a bit of missinformation.
In absolute it may be innacurate, but it may still be the most detailed ever in the sens of published work available to the public. The publication / availability of information is a critical factor for scienctifc work.
No scientific work is complete before it has been published and peer reviewed.
You probably meant to say "we, at pebble, already produce and sell a similar product that might interest some of you as a nice alternative to the product discussed here. You can read more about it at http://oursite.com/"
At least do it honneslty if you want to place your product. People, especially on tech sites, are always open to interesting products... If presented the right way. Now you just look like a lamer that doesn't understand what we want and do not want. How can I trust you to know what I want as an intelligent watch.
Its worse than worse.... The NSA was, from what I understand, widely active in the crypto and data security scene. They have their hand on every committee. Their research in every development.
Up to now, I, and probably most of us, assumed good faith. That they were actively playing their role to reinforce security in data protocols an communications with critical application in mind (banking, national security, medical equipment, utilities, etc). Why else play such an active and visible role?
Now it seems there was an ugly monster hidden under this veil. That they used this assumed role to incorporate weaknesses and back doors at every imaginable level of data security. Not only is it an impressive breach of thrust, it is also in increadibly dangerous behaviour. They are basically giving their enemies the perfect tools to infiltrate the systems and protocols every one thought they were protecting.
If you ask me who's the traitor, Snowden is not the first that comes in mind...
That's actually far from true. I synchronise all my watches on a regular basis on reference standard. Some mechanical watches have accuracies far better than some of my quartz watches. The best one is acutally a more than 100 year old pocket chronograph. As long as you attend to it daily, it will tell the time very accurately. On the other hand, my current daily use watch, a citizen with eco drive, looses about a minute every month. So much for the fame quatz technology.
I usually agree with the edition problem of Slashdot, but here I see thing with a bit more nuance. First, the summary accurately summarizes the linked article. It does exactly what it should do. Of course, on a site like Slashdot, where the techical and scientific accuracy is expected higher then elsewhere, a noet from the editor pointing the innacuracy in the linked and summerized article would have been nice. But that can't really be expect frm most Slashdot editors.
Then one can debate whether the information is accurate or not. It all comes to a poorly defined expression, "outer space". It canbe interpreted many ways. But regardless, the formulation is either false or missleeding.
Sadly, the editors here do not edit... Its simply moderated posting. Nothing more.
Just a thought, but maybe they simply don't need that kind of accuracy for this payload? The lunar transfer can be done with much lower accuracy (ref all other flights there until now) and at the difference from an ICBM, they have a much larger window to verify an correct the trajectory. The payload itself can also make corrections once placed in lunar orbit. Why would they waste an AIRS, if its not needed.
I actually don't understand why the peacekeeper needed it in the first place... I mean, the thing delivers 300 kt airburst warheads. I doupt a few 100 meters targeting error makes such a difference. But you know the millitary, if they can kill the prime target with a hit on the head from a falling reentry vehicule before detonating it, they'll be happy. You know, just to be sure.
For the watch market, 300$ is actually pretty cheap. Should we expect lower prices because this watch does more/others things and/or things differently?
Yes geogob, it shows everything the US tried to avoid for 40-50 years.
That's the keyword. You got it right!
Don't think for a second the British organizations didn't try. And they admirably failed on all levels... especially at searching internal threats, which turned into a paranoid witch hunt. I have no reason or indication to believe it is any different in the US organization - or any organization driven by secrecy for that matter; this is not a problem limited to the US or UK - and I do not believe you have any real indications pointing otherwise either.
The Snowden case speak for itself I believe, don't you think?
Someone posted this in a comment a few days ago. It is a comment from Adam Curtis of the BBC on MI5, which quite well illustrates how effective paranoia driven internal witch hunts are. I can't believe it would any different in American intelligence organisation.
I believe this comment is quite appropriate once again.Read it. Its worth the laugh.
And this is exactly why I say this system is not a good idea and should NOT replace situational awareness.
In addition I was referring to explicit variable speed limitations. What you are referring to, that of course applies every where, is something quite different. You have signs that tell you the speed limit under rainy conditions. Other signs are LED displays that are changed according to the conditions. All those COULD be interpreted by a speed limitation system with sign recognition, but that would be quite a complex system.
No!!! You slow down and get back behind the vehicle you are trying to pass!! Every year there are deaths on the road because people are idiots and think they can "accelerate" a little faster. You can't. You slow down if you misjudged anything. Cars can slow down much faster than they can speed up - larger acceleration in breaking - if you are looking for one reason. Another reason - crashes at slower speed at always better than higher speed.
First, I think you didn't understand my example. I was describing a very specific case where doing exactly what you say WILL get you in an accident. There is no general whether it is safer to accelerate or decelerate. Anyone who believes this, does something wrong. Just as the person coming to this situation in the first place. I'm of course speaking of someone showing obviously bad judgement... I see people doing this way to often.
That wouldn't work in lots of place - for example in Germany - where there are speed limits that are variables and are adapted with traffic or weather conditions. That's a principal problem for every area where the speed limit is dependent on weather. In France, a lot of highways have a speed limit of 130 (in modern units) and 110 when it is raining or the road is wet. How would such as system work under such regulations? Regardless of with or without a camera, its not easy.
Then if you don't have a camera, the system would need accurate to the minute information on construction work. Else you'll see someone race at 120 through a 60 construction zone... and it's quite a critical point because once you have automatic speed limiters, people rely on them and stop driving. They just move ahead, without any consideration for the speed they are at. This is dangerous, because they totally lose situational awareness.
Lets say you have a camera. How does it handle multiple speed limits for trucks or cars with trailers? How about lane dependent speed limit? It must also see and interpret the signs associated with the speed limits. That makes quite a lot of data to process and artificial intelligence built in a critical system. Not that its impossible... this is some sort of minimum for self driving cars. But that's going to be expensive. You might just as well make the car self driving if it already has this level of situational awareness.
Speak of it again, I don't think this is a good measure. Either make the car fully automatic or leave it be. Any measure that detaches the driver from situational awareness is the wrong way to go around it in my (non expert) opinion. I would rather consider an alternative, based on the same system, that issues warnings rather than take control of critical systems.
Lets give an illustrative example (I can't find a car analogy right now)... a car passes a truck on a country road. He's almost past the front of the truck, but the driver realizes he miss judged the distance with oncoming traffic. In most cases, the only way out of this, is to accelerate and quickly get for the truck. Breaking to get back behind when you almost past it would take longer... and that's assuming the spot behind it is still there and not closed by another car. Suddenly, your built in speed limiter decides you are going too fast for your safety and cuts the ignition, obviously not aware that you are trying to avoid a face to face collision.
I'd take a lot of time thinking such a system through before implementing it...
No. That's no joke. It's irrelevant from where and how you got the classified documents in your hands. If you are not supposed to have them, you'll can get into a lot of trouble. The only way out of bigger trouble is most likely to fill an incident report, which will, i guess, ruin your day, your work and your computer. Possibly your private stuff as well back home.
Slashdot Mirror
An why would this be more a problem for flights in a stratospheric balloon than for any other kind of manned "spaceflight" flight? Do we see a "cancer cluster" in this population?
But let me quote your link : "...and the risks from cosmic radiation do not warrant changing your travel plans to reduce your exposure."
Or it's coming from someone understanding between a controlled landing, albeit not on a runway, and an uncontrolled flight into terrain... or crash, if you prefer.
Just a quick word from a canadian living in Germany...
The issue with Canada is not that the citizen do not vote for other parties or politicien. The issue is that, due to the electoral system, a party can get the majority of the seats with less than 40% of the popular vote. So in fact, Canadian chose to vote for someone else, and, quite ironically, because of this popular decision, the conservatives were promoted from a minortiy government to a majority government.
In Germany, the politcal and electoral system is quite different. But your assessment that a coalition colapsed is quite far from what is going on here. Yes, one of the coalition parties was trown out. The conservatives (which is quite a relative word when compared to the canadian conservatives or, *gasp*, the american conservatives) were already quite strong after the last election and could build a coalition with one of the smaller parties, the liberals, which allowed them to achieve the majority in the Bundestag. Since the last election, the liberals had been acting like assholes and showed themself as lobyist mor than liberals. They also failed to pass their only real electoral promess of reducing taxes, which was the only reason why people voted for them in the first place. All thing considered, it shouldn't surprise anyone they got thrown out. Even the conservatives told their electorate to give their two votes (in germany, you vote for a direct mandate - someone representing your county - and a seconde vote, where you vote for a party. The liberals only got seats through this seconde popular vote) to them. Basically, the the coaliation leader campaign against their coaliation partner.
So saying that the coaliation collapsed is a bit strange in this context. The conservatives got almost all everything back what the liberals lost and ended just under the majority. Of course, they lost this hand and now must either build a coaliation or a minortiy government (which is unusual).
But I would say that democracy is very healthy here compared in a lot of places in the west. Of course, the economy, infrastructures and the social structure are in very good shape in Germany, what helps for stability.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
The the person behind the camera sees his own potos. That counts above anything else, if you have any artistic fiber in you.
The reason for the doubt is that melon-headed whales beach themselves anyway with surprising frequency.
The interesting question is, how can you tell this surprisingly high frequency ist not due to sonars?
Why don't we ever get articles like this one on slashdot?
Because it is solly based on a false premise.
Global warming has slowed since 1998 even though humans spewing ever more greenhouse gases are almost certainly to blame for damaging the atmosphere.
This statement is based on, they say a report summary...
That’s according to a 36-page summary of a report from a United Nations panel released in Stockholm today concluding Earth’s temperature since 1998 has increased at less than half the pace of longer-term averages since 1951.
... which they cleverly never cite directly or link to. Here is the link...
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
The statement made by the article is never explicitely made in this report. On the contrary already on page 3, it is explained why a statement such as the one made in the article is, while true in a specific context, is missleading due to local variations in observed trends. If you look carfully at figure SPM-1 and the statement made on page SPM-3 (3), you will not only see that the author of the article missunderstood the statement made, but even inverted completly its interpretation and meaning.
The report states that the trend evaluate between 1998 and 2012 is slower thant the rate evaluate between 1951 and 2012. This trend variation is fully explained by a local change in temperature variation due to a strong El Nino over the 1960-1990 period and has nothing to do with global warming.
Ironically, the journalist missunderstood (deliberatly or not) the explanation why the use of local trend is missleading in understanding climate change and used the missleading trend stated as example of trend not to use to base is thesis on. I couldn't write "Wooooosh" loud enough.
And we should see more such nicely writte article on /. Yeah, that would be awesome.
Go read the report and learn something.
Of course, that statement was specifically and uniquely directed at the multi-touch technology and the iphone screen, which has nothing to do with this patent issue. But meh... What would be a good headline without a bit of missinformation.
In absolute it may be innacurate, but it may still be the most detailed ever in the sens of published work available to the public. The publication / availability of information is a critical factor for scienctifc work.
No scientific work is complete before it has been published and peer reviewed.
we used to run around the school yard with wood sticks and make pew pew pew at schoolmates and - oh god -.even towards teachers.
Obviously we had to turn all out to be serial psychotic killers that shot everyone out our schools.
Most likely not
Definitely not what I (as the AC you're replying to) meant to say. I am not with Pebble
At least there's two of us bad at spotting shills. Just as bad as we are spotting sarcasm I guess.
You probably meant to say "we, at pebble, already produce and sell a similar product that might interest some of you as a nice alternative to the product discussed here. You can read more about it at http://oursite.com/"
At least do it honneslty if you want to place your product. People, especially on tech sites, are always open to interesting products... If presented the right way. Now you just look like a lamer that doesn't understand what we want and do not want. How can I trust you to know what I want as an intelligent watch.
Please go sleep over this.
How was it again, what they said?
If you are not doing anything wrong, you don't have to hide it and don't have to worry?
It's a nice case of "look who's talking".
Its worse than worse.... The NSA was, from what I understand, widely active in the crypto and data security scene. They have their hand on every committee. Their research in every development.
Up to now, I, and probably most of us, assumed good faith. That they were actively playing their role to reinforce security in data protocols an communications with critical application in mind (banking, national security, medical equipment, utilities, etc). Why else play such an active and visible role?
Now it seems there was an ugly monster hidden under this veil. That they used this assumed role to incorporate weaknesses and back doors at every imaginable level of data security. Not only is it an impressive breach of thrust, it is also in increadibly dangerous behaviour. They are basically giving their enemies the perfect tools to infiltrate the systems and protocols every one thought they were protecting.
If you ask me who's the traitor, Snowden is not the first that comes in mind...
That's actually far from true. I synchronise all my watches on a regular basis on reference standard. Some mechanical watches have accuracies far better than some of my quartz watches. The best one is acutally a more than 100 year old pocket chronograph. As long as you attend to it daily, it will tell the time very accurately. On the other hand, my current daily use watch, a citizen with eco drive, looses about a minute every month. So much for the fame quatz technology.
But I like it. I'm always on time for my train.
I usually agree with the edition problem of Slashdot, but here I see thing with a bit more nuance. First, the summary accurately summarizes the linked article. It does exactly what it should do. Of course, on a site like Slashdot, where the techical and scientific accuracy is expected higher then elsewhere, a noet from the editor pointing the innacuracy in the linked and summerized article would have been nice. But that can't really be expect frm most Slashdot editors.
Then one can debate whether the information is accurate or not. It all comes to a poorly defined expression, "outer space". It canbe interpreted many ways. But regardless, the formulation is either false or missleeding.
Sadly, the editors here do not edit... Its simply moderated posting. Nothing more.
Just a thought, but maybe they simply don't need that kind of accuracy for this payload? The lunar transfer can be done with much lower accuracy (ref all other flights there until now) and at the difference from an ICBM, they have a much larger window to verify an correct the trajectory. The payload itself can also make corrections once placed in lunar orbit. Why would they waste an AIRS, if its not needed.
I actually don't understand why the peacekeeper needed it in the first place... I mean, the thing delivers 300 kt airburst warheads. I doupt a few 100 meters targeting error makes such a difference. But you know the millitary, if they can kill the prime target with a hit on the head from a falling reentry vehicule before detonating it, they'll be happy. You know, just to be sure.
For the watch market, 300$ is actually pretty cheap. Should we expect lower prices because this watch does more/others things and/or things differently?
Yes geogob, it shows everything the US tried to avoid for 40-50 years .
That's the keyword. You got it right!
Don't think for a second the British organizations didn't try. And they admirably failed on all levels... especially at searching internal threats, which turned into a paranoid witch hunt. I have no reason or indication to believe it is any different in the US organization - or any organization driven by secrecy for that matter; this is not a problem limited to the US or UK - and I do not believe you have any real indications pointing otherwise either.
The Snowden case speak for itself I believe, don't you think?
Someone posted this in a comment a few days ago.
It is a comment from Adam Curtis of the BBC on MI5, which quite well illustrates how effective paranoia driven internal witch hunts are. I can't believe it would any different in American intelligence organisation.
I believe this comment is quite appropriate once again.Read it. Its worth the laugh.
HINT HINT HINT!! That applies everywhere.
And this is exactly why I say this system is not a good idea and should NOT replace situational awareness.
In addition I was referring to explicit variable speed limitations. What you are referring to, that of course applies every where, is something quite different. You have signs that tell you the speed limit under rainy conditions. Other signs are LED displays that are changed according to the conditions. All those COULD be interpreted by a speed limitation system with sign recognition, but that would be quite a complex system.
No!!! You slow down and get back behind the vehicle you are trying to pass!! Every year there are deaths on the road because people are idiots and think they can "accelerate" a little faster. You can't. You slow down if you misjudged anything. Cars can slow down much faster than they can speed up - larger acceleration in breaking - if you are looking for one reason. Another reason - crashes at slower speed at always better than higher speed.
First, I think you didn't understand my example. I was describing a very specific case where doing exactly what you say WILL get you in an accident. There is no general whether it is safer to accelerate or decelerate. Anyone who believes this, does something wrong. Just as the person coming to this situation in the first place. I'm of course speaking of someone showing obviously bad judgement... I see people doing this way to often.
That wouldn't work in lots of place - for example in Germany - where there are speed limits that are variables and are adapted with traffic or weather conditions. That's a principal problem for every area where the speed limit is dependent on weather. In France, a lot of highways have a speed limit of 130 (in modern units) and 110 when it is raining or the road is wet. How would such as system work under such regulations? Regardless of with or without a camera, its not easy.
Then if you don't have a camera, the system would need accurate to the minute information on construction work. Else you'll see someone race at 120 through a 60 construction zone... and it's quite a critical point because once you have automatic speed limiters, people rely on them and stop driving. They just move ahead, without any consideration for the speed they are at. This is dangerous, because they totally lose situational awareness.
Lets say you have a camera. How does it handle multiple speed limits for trucks or cars with trailers? How about lane dependent speed limit? It must also see and interpret the signs associated with the speed limits. That makes quite a lot of data to process and artificial intelligence built in a critical system. Not that its impossible... this is some sort of minimum for self driving cars. But that's going to be expensive. You might just as well make the car self driving if it already has this level of situational awareness.
Speak of it again, I don't think this is a good measure. Either make the car fully automatic or leave it be. Any measure that detaches the driver from situational awareness is the wrong way to go around it in my (non expert) opinion. I would rather consider an alternative, based on the same system, that issues warnings rather than take control of critical systems.
Lets give an illustrative example (I can't find a car analogy right now)... a car passes a truck on a country road. He's almost past the front of the truck, but the driver realizes he miss judged the distance with oncoming traffic. In most cases, the only way out of this, is to accelerate and quickly get for the truck. Breaking to get back behind when you almost past it would take longer... and that's assuming the spot behind it is still there and not closed by another car. Suddenly, your built in speed limiter decides you are going too fast for your safety and cuts the ignition, obviously not aware that you are trying to avoid a face to face collision.
I'd take a lot of time thinking such a system through before implementing it...
I didn't detect any
No. That's no joke. It's irrelevant from where and how you got the classified documents in your hands. If you are not supposed to have them, you'll can get into a lot of trouble. The only way out of bigger trouble is most likely to fill an incident report, which will, i guess, ruin your day, your work and your computer. Possibly your private stuff as well back home.
You can't do that with ctrl-shift-t !