Sounds pretty much like what happens with, for example, Star Wars books, cartoons, etc. If you've got official sanction, either pre- or post- production, you're canon. Otherwise, you're not, and the compatibility of your work with the head honcho's vision is a major factor in the decision. Admittedly, with modern publishing and production money changes hands... oh, no, that's another probable similarity.
Hmmm... do you know where the computers and materials science that we use to make things like cancer cures and hepatitis vaccines come from? The quantum physics developed by the theorists like Einstein (a little bit) and his contemporaries (much more) and the experimentalists using previous generations of particle accelerators.
Because all the major media outlets have decided that every story should end with "tell us what you think!" so we can all "join the conversation." Slashdot is just playing me too.
Probably what really happened is that nobody submitted today's "am I too old to change careers?" question and the editors had to come up with something on their own.
It's not a ring. It's a linear collider. But other than that, you're right. The LHC is dug down far enough that, were it in Florida, it would be a nice underground lake.
The Japanese one is a linear collider. It complements the LHC, which is a synchrotron. The different types of machine are usually used to look at different things, and there has usually been a big one of each type operating (the Tevatron and SLC in the 90s, for example). Plus it takes ten years to build these things, after you spend years planning them.
That is precisely what a code book is. A "code" is a system of substituting letters or words for other letters or words. The one he's proposed is fairly simple but it's still a code.
Omni-font optical character recognition, the Kurzweil Reading Machine (read books out loud to the blind), the Kurzweil K250 (one of the first synthesizers that could accurately imitate real instruments), one of the first commercial speech recognition programs, computer learning programs for children and med students, etc.
May I suggest you learn about these new technologies called "Google" and "Wikipedia?"
I hate to tell you, but most scientific fields put the threshold at 1.96 sigma. Actually, it's often lower because people are frequently sloppy about calculating their degrees of freedom.
The standard is usually higher in particle physics partly because they do statistically naughty things like analyzing their data while they're collecting it, and partly because particle physicists can fairly easily just keep collecting data longer.
I should have been more specific - why should Google want to be the dominant force in mapping if by "dominant force" you mean providing you with mapping data cheaply or for free and not being able to gather as much information?
Google wouldn't give Apple access to all the features they wanted unless Apple let Google track people more (integrating Latitude in the Google Maps app was apparently a big sticking point). And Apple was paying Google a lot more than for one business license. Why would Google let you have free access to their mapping data when they can't gather any more information than they could with the Apple maps app?
Google isn't in the business of giving away stuff for free. Google is in the business of trading services and data for other data.
Why should Google want to be the dominant force in mapping applications? Google is an advertising company, probably the largest one on the planet. They provide services like mapping because it allows them to collect information that lets them target ads, making those ads more valuable and making them more money.
Yes, Android being owned and developed by an advertising company might hurt it in the long run.
Reasons why Google did this: (1) People were buying iPhone 5s in droves despite the silly anti-hype.
(2) Google doesn't care who buys what phone, so long as they all send their data to Google. Google doesn't make anything on Android (it costs them a lot to develop and maintain it). Google makes a LOT of money on harvesting your information. Now they've got millions of iPhone users giving them location information and using them for geographic search again.
Google's map app is pushing pretty hard to have you log in. It looks like it can't even remember a search history unless you're logged into your Google account.
I agree with posters further up - this is a win for users. We get Google maps encouraging Apple to improve, and we've got Apple maps if we get tired of being tracked everywhere by Google.
The Roman empire wasn't about to discover interstellar radio waves. If you were really worried about it though, you could use some encoding tricks to make sure nobody without a decent computer could tell your signal was anything other than noise.
Considering the power you'd need to use to send messages interstellar distances using neutrinos, the savages would probably notice stars going out.
"It may be absolutely true that global climate models predict large amounts of sea level rise, but there is no actual evidence in the form of large rises in sea level to support this"
I don't recall anyone saying there is. The IPCC is talking about scenarios that seem most likely, given what we think we know about how the planet works. We can wait and see, making observations to see if the models are correct, or we can start to think about what we're going to do if they are correct.
Personally, as a medial researcher, I like to try it and see what happens, but the patients usually prefer we have some theoretical justification and do most of our experimenting in animals (imperfect models) first. In terms of altering global climate I can see how the experimental approach might also have a few issues.
You can fix the problem in your GPS receiver by plugging it into your computer and flashing the firmware. Or buying another one, if the company ever stops being lazy and fixes their software bug.
GPS receiver software has bugs just like any other computer system. Who woulda thought?
You can still navigate an airliner cross country the way they did before GPS, using dead reckoning and inertial navigation between VOR and ADF stations. Airline pilots are still required to know how to do this.
Planes don't generally use GPS for altitude at all (which is the biggest concern for bad GPS data). If you're not an idiot you use all the navigation information available to you, including GPS, radar, other electronic navigation aids, gyro compass, magnetic compass and your two eyes looking out the window. If the Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan methods don't agree with the new fangled ones you trust the old ones to keep you safe (i.e. above the ground) while you figure out what's going on. I know airline pilots. They do this. They don't just stare at their GPS until the reading goes blank.
Airliners don't rely on GPS. They use it, because it's convenient, but they don't rely on it. If GPS fails airline pilots are quite capable of using land based radio navigation aids (yes, they still exist, no they are not LORAN), inertial navigation or dead reckoning. I believe general aviation pilots qualified for visual flight rule must still be able to navigate without instruments (thus visual flight rule) and instrument flight rule pilots must first be VFR qualified. The US navy might have eliminated celestial navigation training for all officers but I would be very surprised if every navy ship isn't required to carry at least one navigator capable of celestial navigation, and they most certainly have navigators capable of navigating using the visual, sound and non-GPS radio navigation aids deployed around coasts. Certainly commercial ships are required to have celestial and coastal navigators aboard. Private boat owners must also be familiar with the latter and if you're venturing away from land you'd be smart to learn some celestial as well. I teach the course to obtain a pleasure craft operator certificate, including the coastal nav part, in Canada. I'm also a qualified non-commercial celestial navigator (that useless sextant training).
The only people who pilot boats or planes who rely on GPS are careless ones who passed the non-electronic navigation tests, ignored everything their instructors, other boat operators/pilots and common sense told them, and forgot everything.
The OP is absolutely correct and you're wrong on all counts except LORAN being shut down and possibly celestial navigation not being taught to all US naval officers. Killing GPS would piss off a lot of people, but it wouldn't bring down any planes or run aground any boats piloted by anyone competent. And as others have noted, this has been (inadvertently) tried. Various GPS jammers have in different ways gotten close to airports and coasts. No planes crashed.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds pretty much like what happens with, for example, Star Wars books, cartoons, etc. If you've got official sanction, either pre- or post- production, you're canon. Otherwise, you're not, and the compatibility of your work with the head honcho's vision is a major factor in the decision. Admittedly, with modern publishing and production money changes hands... oh, no, that's another probable similarity.
Hmmm... do you know where the computers and materials science that we use to make things like cancer cures and hepatitis vaccines come from? The quantum physics developed by the theorists like Einstein (a little bit) and his contemporaries (much more) and the experimentalists using previous generations of particle accelerators.
The LHC can collide protons and bunches of protons and neutrons. There are a few other subatomic particles.
Because all the major media outlets have decided that every story should end with "tell us what you think!" so we can all "join the conversation." Slashdot is just playing me too.
Probably what really happened is that nobody submitted today's "am I too old to change careers?" question and the editors had to come up with something on their own.
Some people call it "thinking ahead."
"The us runs from 65N to 125N"
Hm... I always thought most of the US was south of us. And that 125N thing must be quite a trick.
It's not a ring. It's a linear collider. But other than that, you're right. The LHC is dug down far enough that, were it in Florida, it would be a nice underground lake.
The Japanese one is a linear collider. It complements the LHC, which is a synchrotron. The different types of machine are usually used to look at different things, and there has usually been a big one of each type operating (the Tevatron and SLC in the 90s, for example). Plus it takes ten years to build these things, after you spend years planning them.
Sure they are. Nobody photoshopped out the zits.
Ah, I just use my favourite celebrity's answers. That way it's easy to remember.
That is precisely what a code book is. A "code" is a system of substituting letters or words for other letters or words. The one he's proposed is fairly simple but it's still a code.
Omni-font optical character recognition, the Kurzweil Reading Machine (read books out loud to the blind), the Kurzweil K250 (one of the first synthesizers that could accurately imitate real instruments), one of the first commercial speech recognition programs, computer learning programs for children and med students, etc.
May I suggest you learn about these new technologies called "Google" and "Wikipedia?"
I hate to tell you, but most scientific fields put the threshold at 1.96 sigma. Actually, it's often lower because people are frequently sloppy about calculating their degrees of freedom.
The standard is usually higher in particle physics partly because they do statistically naughty things like analyzing their data while they're collecting it, and partly because particle physicists can fairly easily just keep collecting data longer.
Don't worry, the standard model still has LOTS of loose threads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model#Challenges
The Higgs itself exacerbates one.
I should have been more specific - why should Google want to be the dominant force in mapping if by "dominant force" you mean providing you with mapping data cheaply or for free and not being able to gather as much information?
Google wouldn't give Apple access to all the features they wanted unless Apple let Google track people more (integrating Latitude in the Google Maps app was apparently a big sticking point). And Apple was paying Google a lot more than for one business license. Why would Google let you have free access to their mapping data when they can't gather any more information than they could with the Apple maps app?
Google isn't in the business of giving away stuff for free. Google is in the business of trading services and data for other data.
Why should Google want to be the dominant force in mapping applications? Google is an advertising company, probably the largest one on the planet. They provide services like mapping because it allows them to collect information that lets them target ads, making those ads more valuable and making them more money.
Yes, Android being owned and developed by an advertising company might hurt it in the long run.
Sounds like Google's standard maps SDK terms. It's always been that way.
Reasons why Google did this:
(1) People were buying iPhone 5s in droves despite the silly anti-hype.
(2) Google doesn't care who buys what phone, so long as they all send their data to Google. Google doesn't make anything on Android (it costs them a lot to develop and maintain it). Google makes a LOT of money on harvesting your information. Now they've got millions of iPhone users giving them location information and using them for geographic search again.
Google's map app is pushing pretty hard to have you log in. It looks like it can't even remember a search history unless you're logged into your Google account.
I agree with posters further up - this is a win for users. We get Google maps encouraging Apple to improve, and we've got Apple maps if we get tired of being tracked everywhere by Google.
Probably most of us. Most people can't afford accountants to find loopholes for them, or open accounts in the Cayman islands.
That's not a REALLY good reason.
The Roman empire wasn't about to discover interstellar radio waves. If you were really worried about it though, you could use some encoding tricks to make sure nobody without a decent computer could tell your signal was anything other than noise.
Considering the power you'd need to use to send messages interstellar distances using neutrinos, the savages would probably notice stars going out.
"It may be absolutely true that global climate models predict large amounts of sea level rise, but there is no actual evidence in the form of large rises in sea level to support this"
I don't recall anyone saying there is. The IPCC is talking about scenarios that seem most likely, given what we think we know about how the planet works. We can wait and see, making observations to see if the models are correct, or we can start to think about what we're going to do if they are correct.
Personally, as a medial researcher, I like to try it and see what happens, but the patients usually prefer we have some theoretical justification and do most of our experimenting in animals (imperfect models) first. In terms of altering global climate I can see how the experimental approach might also have a few issues.
You can fix the problem in your GPS receiver by plugging it into your computer and flashing the firmware. Or buying another one, if the company ever stops being lazy and fixes their software bug.
GPS receiver software has bugs just like any other computer system. Who woulda thought?
You can still navigate an airliner cross country the way they did before GPS, using dead reckoning and inertial navigation between VOR and ADF stations. Airline pilots are still required to know how to do this.
Planes don't generally use GPS for altitude at all (which is the biggest concern for bad GPS data). If you're not an idiot you use all the navigation information available to you, including GPS, radar, other electronic navigation aids, gyro compass, magnetic compass and your two eyes looking out the window. If the Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan methods don't agree with the new fangled ones you trust the old ones to keep you safe (i.e. above the ground) while you figure out what's going on. I know airline pilots. They do this. They don't just stare at their GPS until the reading goes blank.
Airliners don't rely on GPS. They use it, because it's convenient, but they don't rely on it. If GPS fails airline pilots are quite capable of using land based radio navigation aids (yes, they still exist, no they are not LORAN), inertial navigation or dead reckoning. I believe general aviation pilots qualified for visual flight rule must still be able to navigate without instruments (thus visual flight rule) and instrument flight rule pilots must first be VFR qualified. The US navy might have eliminated celestial navigation training for all officers but I would be very surprised if every navy ship isn't required to carry at least one navigator capable of celestial navigation, and they most certainly have navigators capable of navigating using the visual, sound and non-GPS radio navigation aids deployed around coasts. Certainly commercial ships are required to have celestial and coastal navigators aboard. Private boat owners must also be familiar with the latter and if you're venturing away from land you'd be smart to learn some celestial as well. I teach the course to obtain a pleasure craft operator certificate, including the coastal nav part, in Canada. I'm also a qualified non-commercial celestial navigator (that useless sextant training).
The only people who pilot boats or planes who rely on GPS are careless ones who passed the non-electronic navigation tests, ignored everything their instructors, other boat operators/pilots and common sense told them, and forgot everything.
The OP is absolutely correct and you're wrong on all counts except LORAN being shut down and possibly celestial navigation not being taught to all US naval officers. Killing GPS would piss off a lot of people, but it wouldn't bring down any planes or run aground any boats piloted by anyone competent. And as others have noted, this has been (inadvertently) tried. Various GPS jammers have in different ways gotten close to airports and coasts. No planes crashed.