The 5% figure is based on an extremely narrow definition of success. He is only counting head-on intercepts (by looking at contrails), and discounting all rockets hit on the side or rear, on the assumption that the warhead might survive those, and while not hitting anything in particular, could end up hitting something. No doubt the Israeli government's figure of 90% success is, on the other hand, optimistic. But don't take the 5% figure at face value without further context.
With all the subsequent advances in unmanned space exploration, it is stunning to be reminded that these images first came from a manned mission. It has been decades since robots couldn't be sent to places that people cannot go. Mars feels like old hat.
Well, what specifically would be changed by the discovery of non-intelligent life? Some astrobiologist says, "based on spectrum analysis we think their is an exchange of gasses on planet X indicative of biological processes." Over the next 15 or 20 years there is more data collection and analysis and gradually more people become convinced. But it is still a hundred light years away.
Admittedly I am more of a critic of how people will react than a predictor of it. Many people still see landing on the moon as the pinnacle of human achievement and again, I argue, how so? What did it accomplish or change? Not much. There is something I don't see about how people perceive things.
Although, the more similar the lifeform is to us, the more likely it is to actually matter to us. If it is sub-intelligent, then it might meet some definition of "life," but would have no impact on life here. The other direction is more interesting though - what if it's way beyond us? In that case we must ask why it either did not find us first, or chooses not to interact with us.
No, the point is that ignoring politics is bad business, and particularly risky in the US where the door to political manipulation by business is wide open, so if one company doesn't do it their competitors will!
Heck, look what Tesla already accomplished - they complained about California's ground rules, and got an exemption written into law for themselves - without casting a vote or spending a dollar! From the article: "On the legislative front, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, co-authored a bipartisan bill, yet to be fleshed out, enabling Mather Field's business park, outside Sacramento, to avoid time-consuming environmental reviews. Large tax breaks were floated, like the $425 million tax break passed earlier this month for Lockheed Martin to persuade the company to build a new generation of bombers at its Los Angeles plant."
How can businesses refuse to play politics when half-billion dollar handouts are to be had for the asking?
Here's an article on google's political coming of age:
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
Nine years ago, the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital's pay-to-play culture.
Since then, Google has soared to near the top of the city's lobbying ranks, placing second only to General Electric in corporate lobbying expenditures in 2012 and fifth place in 2013.
...
Today, Google is working to preserve its rights to collect consumer data - and shield it from the government - amid a backlash over revelations that the National Security Agency tapped Internet companies as part of its surveillance programs. And it markets cloud storage and other services to federal departments, including intelligence agencies and the Pentagon.
"Technology issues are a big - and growing - part of policy debates in Washington, and it is important for us to be part of that discussion," said Susan Molinari, a Republican former congresswoman from New York who works as Google's top lobbyist.
The most horrible thing about corruption is that one it sets in, you can't just unilaterally opt out without severe negative consequences.
If only they mic'd up the whole car, instead of just the front. Then it would allow passengers in the rear to participate in cellphone calls, and make having a conversation throughout the vehicle much easier. It would make the middle and rear space less second class. But being one-way, it really does come across as a "yell at the kids" feature.
It's 2014 so the Internet has been around a long time and it's not surprising growth is slowing. What surprises me is that according to the article there are only 632 million Internet users in China in June, whereas the total population of 1.35 billion is over twice that number. In other words, most people in China do not access the Internet - only 47%. In the US the figure is 87%.
I think that is a myth. Can you name any elections in which the number of voters later determined to be dead was greater than the margin of victory? (A very low hurdle if they are "often pivotal.")
Spam-filtering is google's core capability... google broke into internet search with the page rank algorithm whose essential purpose is to combat "search engine optimization."
To carry a package, yes... allowing packages to be carried over cities at this point would be reckless IMHO.
But I was more disappointed by this example of what is not allowed: "Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of a commercial farming operation."
You don't need a big, heavy drone to take pictures, and there isn't much to crash into on farm land. (Granted, the max altitude must still be limited to prevent collisions with larger aircraft.)
Now, maybe satellite imagery is or will soon be the cheapest way to do this anyways, and maybe moisture imaging is best done in non-visible wavelengths that hobby drones don't have. But those are market concerns. I don't see much safety concern in buzzing around a farm.
Well it would certainly be odd to spend a couple billion developing a fab to ensure the integrity of the supply chain for your chips, only to install an OS from the Pirate Bay on it.
The fund is an S&P 500 index, not just a Nasdaq index. The top 10 holdings together form 17.8% of the fund. Still, the fact that 2 of the largest 3 companies in the S&P 500 are named in this lawsuit shows that a huge number of people would be affected (and likely to balk) if the companies were punished enough to have an actual impact.
Too much money and power are in on the take. Apple is worth about 12% of the entire Nasdaq, so Apple + google is about 20% of the whole enchilada. In my Fidelity-managed 401K index fund, for example (that is, basically my life's savings), Apple is my #1 holding, right above Exxon, Google, and Microsoft. So 2 of those 4 would be directly impacted, and Microsoft would no doubt feel some fallout (through rising salaries for their talent).
In a true democracy this argument should not bear much weight, since MOST (over 50%) of all stock is owned by only 1% of citizens. Most of us have a tiny slice, and I (for example) would benefit much more from higher wages in the tech sector than from a little more growth in my 401K. But in general, we small-potatoes shareholders (that is, almost all shareholders) are too short-sighted to take a hit now for the long-term economy.
More ominously, real influence is proportional to the wealth of a group rather than how many people are in it. Even if you convinced the bottom 99% of voters, you would still only have a minority of shares.
The reason I dwell on this is because I think the same logic, exactly, explains why the bank bailout occurred and the implosion of Wall Street had no real corrective result on the US economy or the distribution of wealth.
My problem is, IIRC, you don't know what broad permissions an app is going to request upfront, until after you have downloaded and partially installed it. By then you have already wasted your time and bandwidth. You are invested. It would take half a day to look at 20 different versions of Tetris to see which is OK. If you could filter Google Play searches - "search for a version of Tetris that doesn't demand to look at my contact list" - then that would create a tiny bit of market pressure to not just demand everything all the time.
Almost every app requests almost every permission anyways, so what was the point of fine-grained permissions? Why do I have to let you access the network and my contact list to play Tetris? It's frustrating.
Well, I tossed out the figure of $100 is pretty low, but even an LG G2 is right about half that. Then again, if you're resigned to being on contract with AT&T, I guess it makes sense to go with the phone that gets the biggest subsidy.
According to Amazon's website, the phone will range from $649 to $749 with an AT&T contract and will be available starting July 25.
cite.
Even if that's a misprint and that's the price without a contract, that is WAY too much money!
It is amazing how much phone you can get for $100 now - GPS, decently high-res screen, MicroSD slot. If you ask me the movement is towards off-contract phones that provide a decent value, and $749 phones are going the way of the $3500 PC.
Slashdot Mirror
The 5% figure is based on an extremely narrow definition of success. He is only counting head-on intercepts (by looking at contrails), and discounting all rockets hit on the side or rear, on the assumption that the warhead might survive those, and while not hitting anything in particular, could end up hitting something. No doubt the Israeli government's figure of 90% success is, on the other hand, optimistic. But don't take the 5% figure at face value without further context.
With all the subsequent advances in unmanned space exploration, it is stunning to be reminded that these images first came from a manned mission. It has been decades since robots couldn't be sent to places that people cannot go. Mars feels like old hat.
Admittedly I am more of a critic of how people will react than a predictor of it. Many people still see landing on the moon as the pinnacle of human achievement and again, I argue, how so? What did it accomplish or change? Not much. There is something I don't see about how people perceive things.
Although, the more similar the lifeform is to us, the more likely it is to actually matter to us. If it is sub-intelligent, then it might meet some definition of "life," but would have no impact on life here. The other direction is more interesting though - what if it's way beyond us? In that case we must ask why it either did not find us first, or chooses not to interact with us.
Heck, look what Tesla already accomplished - they complained about California's ground rules, and got an exemption written into law for themselves - without casting a vote or spending a dollar! From the article: "On the legislative front, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, co-authored a bipartisan bill, yet to be fleshed out, enabling Mather Field's business park, outside Sacramento, to avoid time-consuming environmental reviews. Large tax breaks were floated, like the $425 million tax break passed earlier this month for Lockheed Martin to persuade the company to build a new generation of bombers at its Los Angeles plant."
How can businesses refuse to play politics when half-billion dollar handouts are to be had for the asking?
Here's an article on google's political coming of age:
The most horrible thing about corruption is that one it sets in, you can't just unilaterally opt out without severe negative consequences.
If only they mic'd up the whole car, instead of just the front. Then it would allow passengers in the rear to participate in cellphone calls, and make having a conversation throughout the vehicle much easier. It would make the middle and rear space less second class. But being one-way, it really does come across as a "yell at the kids" feature.
It's 2014 so the Internet has been around a long time and it's not surprising growth is slowing. What surprises me is that according to the article there are only 632 million Internet users in China in June, whereas the total population of 1.35 billion is over twice that number. In other words, most people in China do not access the Internet - only 47%. In the US the figure is 87%.
I think that is a myth. Can you name any elections in which the number of voters later determined to be dead was greater than the margin of victory? (A very low hurdle if they are "often pivotal.")
Spam-filtering is google's core capability... google broke into internet search with the page rank algorithm whose essential purpose is to combat "search engine optimization."
The USA is unique in the resources it can devote, and therefore the scale at which it can operate. Which is to say, it is unique.
But I was more disappointed by this example of what is not allowed: "Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of a commercial farming operation."
You don't need a big, heavy drone to take pictures, and there isn't much to crash into on farm land. (Granted, the max altitude must still be limited to prevent collisions with larger aircraft.)
Now, maybe satellite imagery is or will soon be the cheapest way to do this anyways, and maybe moisture imaging is best done in non-visible wavelengths that hobby drones don't have. But those are market concerns. I don't see much safety concern in buzzing around a farm.
So before continuing, your position is that the earth is warming, but is unavoidable, or will cost more to correct than to let happen, correct?
"Plenty," such as....
It's the same trend as in America in general, top managers take an ever-larger share of company earnings.
Not in the US. The government turns a profit on student loans. Nor is the demand artificial, because as bad a student debt is, being without a degree is still much worse.
Well it would certainly be odd to spend a couple billion developing a fab to ensure the integrity of the supply chain for your chips, only to install an OS from the Pirate Bay on it.
The fund is an S&P 500 index, not just a Nasdaq index. The top 10 holdings together form 17.8% of the fund. Still, the fact that 2 of the largest 3 companies in the S&P 500 are named in this lawsuit shows that a huge number of people would be affected (and likely to balk) if the companies were punished enough to have an actual impact.
In a true democracy this argument should not bear much weight, since MOST (over 50%) of all stock is owned by only 1% of citizens. Most of us have a tiny slice, and I (for example) would benefit much more from higher wages in the tech sector than from a little more growth in my 401K. But in general, we small-potatoes shareholders (that is, almost all shareholders) are too short-sighted to take a hit now for the long-term economy.
More ominously, real influence is proportional to the wealth of a group rather than how many people are in it. Even if you convinced the bottom 99% of voters, you would still only have a minority of shares.
The reason I dwell on this is because I think the same logic, exactly, explains why the bank bailout occurred and the implosion of Wall Street had no real corrective result on the US economy or the distribution of wealth.
Certainly it is on its deathbed at least.
No, but there will be political hell to pay if there is another 9/11.
You are an idiot. I don't own a smartphone because of the experience I wrote about.
My problem is, IIRC, you don't know what broad permissions an app is going to request upfront, until after you have downloaded and partially installed it. By then you have already wasted your time and bandwidth. You are invested. It would take half a day to look at 20 different versions of Tetris to see which is OK. If you could filter Google Play searches - "search for a version of Tetris that doesn't demand to look at my contact list" - then that would create a tiny bit of market pressure to not just demand everything all the time.
Almost every app requests almost every permission anyways, so what was the point of fine-grained permissions? Why do I have to let you access the network and my contact list to play Tetris? It's frustrating.
Well, I tossed out the figure of $100 is pretty low, but even an LG G2 is right about half that. Then again, if you're resigned to being on contract with AT&T, I guess it makes sense to go with the phone that gets the biggest subsidy.
cite. Even if that's a misprint and that's the price without a contract, that is WAY too much money!
It is amazing how much phone you can get for $100 now - GPS, decently high-res screen, MicroSD slot. If you ask me the movement is towards off-contract phones that provide a decent value, and $749 phones are going the way of the $3500 PC.