Because the guy who weighs 275 lbs has to heft himself onto the plane. Your overweight bag needs someone (not you) to put it on and off the plane.
As far as individual bags (or customers) are concerned, any realistic amount of extra weight doesn't cost extra in gas. Handling and volume is a problem. If you try to take a very large or awkward object on a plane you're going to get charged extra because it takes up extra space or needs special handling (one airline won't take my hang glider, the other charges about $250). The same goes for passengers (or should).
This is ridiculous. You're quite correct that genetic factors and some acquired diseases can predispose you to be fatter or thinner by changing the way your body processes food but it is certainly not a myth that exercising more will cause you to be thinner and exercising less will cause you to be fatter. It is also not a myth that your diet affects your weight. You do not directly burn fat while exercising but you certainly divert calories from fat production when exercising and you do burn fat between exercise sessions to support increased muscle mass, muscle building, repair, etc.
It is not very common for a person who gets a reasonable amount of exercise and eats a reasonable diet to be two-seater obese. That usually requires both genetics AND poor diet and exercise habits. In the majority of cases obesity is a preventable disease.
None of which changes the fact that, if you need two seats and only one is available you should not be allowed to fly, regardless of whether it's your fault you need two seats or not.
The sysadmins are vetted just as well as any other employee. Yes, they might end up being a leak but at least they can be held accountable. There's also the issue of how your mail gets to Google. If it stays within your own network it's much more secure than if it goes flitting across the Internet.
"Give me a brake."
You can also decide whether or not to hire sys admins who can't spell.
Have you heard of SSL? If you're talking to an internal mail server using SSL it's secure. Generally when something gets sent outside it has to be anonymized very carefully anyway, but it happens a lot that you send someone else in the lab or hospital an e-mail with information that shouldn't go outside. Perhaps it's not the best practice, but it happens and it's not insecure so long as you're not using an external mail server.
I didn't make up anything. Google is a third party corporation. That is sufficient by itself. It's also got an interest in any data it collects. It doesn't matter at all what Google says they do with the data, nor even what they actually do with it.
Anybody doing any sort of human research, say from the medicine, biomedical and psychology faculties, shouldn't be using GMail, because it involves sending privileged information to a third party corporation and, in this case, a corporation that has a vested interest in using the information they're gathering.
Outside of that, many people like to protect their own privacy.
It's not free. As you point out, Google is a corporation and they don't do things unless they expect to get something out of it. What Google is getting is a LOT of information about Yale students, staff and faculty.
A properly written app will be able to do this too. The way CoreLocation is set up, you register to receive position updates from it, then it sends them to you asynchronously. The first one may not be particularly accurate. The second is usually more so, and so on.
You see that graphically on the maps app when it shows a big blue circle, then a smaller one, then a pin. Some other apps show the position accuracy estimate as it gets refined. A lot of them just grab the first message from CoreLocation and call it a day though.
There's no need to identify people by motion. It has a camera. If there's enough light to see mosquitos by, you can see large objects like people, moving or not, and not shoot when they're in the way. If there isn't enough light to detect large objects you're not going to be able to detect small ones either and will have to use infrared.
Once you've designed a camera tracking system to identify mosquitoes, detecting whether the background behind the mosquito might be a person or animal isn't going to be much of a challenge.
The problem is that DDT doesn't break down in the environment. If you spray it indoors it's eventually going to go somewhere, and that somewhere is probably going to be outside. If you used it sparingly then you'd probably be okay, but I don't really see why using it sparingly indoors would be any safer than using it sparingly outdoors.
The risk isn't from SLRs or compact cameras, it's from the people who emit a steady stream of blurry, compromising pictures from their cell phone cameras directly onto thing like Twitter. Now, they probably don't really care about privacy anyway, but it's worth noting.
Most RAW processing software preserves the tags embedded in the RAW file.
Presumably if you're doing RAW processing you're smart enough to know what EXIF is and make a conscious decision about which tags you want in your web-posted JPEG, but you never know.
The location data can be very wrong. If you don't have an adequate line of sight to the sky the phone will use cell towers to triangulate. If you can't see enough of them, it will use a wifi database to guess. If you've got a crappy (or no) cell connection but a clear view of the sky it might take a considerable amount of time for the GPS to lock on.
As of today, if the US wants to take out an enemy threat they send a little drone to follow the guy around. When he ends up without 20 innocent people crowded around him, the little drone fires a missile at him.
Sometimes it doesn't work exactly as expected and there's some collateral damage anyway. It's not that different from how an orbital laser assassination system would work.
Well, theoretically he could have been using the notebook for five or six years and then gone, uh, to Windows 98. Then only the word "back" would have required time travel.
You have to give the guy making stuff up on the Internet the benefit of the doubt, you know.
"The only legitimate way to get an iPhone application to our customer organizations so that they can distribute the application to their employees would be to give them the source code such that they could compile and distribute the binaries using their Apple enterprise developer license. The enterprise license does not allow you to distribute the provisioning profile/binaries to non-employees. There's no way around this."
The the part that didn't come through - that you're selling the same app to multiple customers. I can see that being against Apple's terms. Developing code for someone isn't.
There is a way around distributing your source code. You send your customer the binary and they sign it using their enterprise developer key. That's the same thing Apple does when you submit an app, except that their key works for everybody.
Battery fires are very unlikely to actually bring down a plane. Or kill anyone.
Even on the ground, where there are a lot more batteries, I've never heard of anyone being killed, or even really injured, by a battery. Now, if you believe in spontaneous human combustion, it does actually kill people occasionally, although it has never brought down a plane (or caused a fatality on one) either.
Therefore, both fat people and batteries are likely safe to fly on planes, although the fat person might be somewhat more dangerous, judging by our experience on the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the guy who weighs 275 lbs has to heft himself onto the plane. Your overweight bag needs someone (not you) to put it on and off the plane.
As far as individual bags (or customers) are concerned, any realistic amount of extra weight doesn't cost extra in gas. Handling and volume is a problem. If you try to take a very large or awkward object on a plane you're going to get charged extra because it takes up extra space or needs special handling (one airline won't take my hang glider, the other charges about $250). The same goes for passengers (or should).
"Exercise is the another myth."
This is ridiculous. You're quite correct that genetic factors and some acquired diseases can predispose you to be fatter or thinner by changing the way your body processes food but it is certainly not a myth that exercising more will cause you to be thinner and exercising less will cause you to be fatter. It is also not a myth that your diet affects your weight. You do not directly burn fat while exercising but you certainly divert calories from fat production when exercising and you do burn fat between exercise sessions to support increased muscle mass, muscle building, repair, etc.
It is not very common for a person who gets a reasonable amount of exercise and eats a reasonable diet to be two-seater obese. That usually requires both genetics AND poor diet and exercise habits. In the majority of cases obesity is a preventable disease.
None of which changes the fact that, if you need two seats and only one is available you should not be allowed to fly, regardless of whether it's your fault you need two seats or not.
Too bad the people who would have had to sit next to him aren't as loud.
YOu don't need facial recognition. You don't need to recognize anything more than "hm, this background is not the background I should be seeing."
The sysadmins are vetted just as well as any other employee. Yes, they might end up being a leak but at least they can be held accountable. There's also the issue of how your mail gets to Google. If it stays within your own network it's much more secure than if it goes flitting across the Internet.
"Give me a brake."
You can also decide whether or not to hire sys admins who can't spell.
Do you encrypt internal memos? Notes to your boss? Meeting agendas?
No. Because they don't get distributed to the outside.
"You don't send private data over the Internet."
If you're not sending private data to an external mail server you're not sending it over the Internet, are you?
Have you heard of SSL? If you're talking to an internal mail server using SSL it's secure. Generally when something gets sent outside it has to be anonymized very carefully anyway, but it happens a lot that you send someone else in the lab or hospital an e-mail with information that shouldn't go outside. Perhaps it's not the best practice, but it happens and it's not insecure so long as you're not using an external mail server.
I didn't make up anything. Google is a third party corporation. That is sufficient by itself. It's also got an interest in any data it collects. It doesn't matter at all what Google says they do with the data, nor even what they actually do with it.
Anybody doing any sort of human research, say from the medicine, biomedical and psychology faculties, shouldn't be using GMail, because it involves sending privileged information to a third party corporation and, in this case, a corporation that has a vested interest in using the information they're gathering.
Outside of that, many people like to protect their own privacy.
It's not free. As you point out, Google is a corporation and they don't do things unless they expect to get something out of it. What Google is getting is a LOT of information about Yale students, staff and faculty.
A properly written app will be able to do this too. The way CoreLocation is set up, you register to receive position updates from it, then it sends them to you asynchronously. The first one may not be particularly accurate. The second is usually more so, and so on.
You see that graphically on the maps app when it shows a big blue circle, then a smaller one, then a pin. Some other apps show the position accuracy estimate as it gets refined. A lot of them just grab the first message from CoreLocation and call it a day though.
There's no need to identify people by motion. It has a camera. If there's enough light to see mosquitos by, you can see large objects like people, moving or not, and not shoot when they're in the way. If there isn't enough light to detect large objects you're not going to be able to detect small ones either and will have to use infrared.
Once you've designed a camera tracking system to identify mosquitoes, detecting whether the background behind the mosquito might be a person or animal isn't going to be much of a challenge.
Did you miss the bit in the article where they said they program it not to shoot people (or butterflies)?
The problem is that DDT doesn't break down in the environment. If you spray it indoors it's eventually going to go somewhere, and that somewhere is probably going to be outside. If you used it sparingly then you'd probably be okay, but I don't really see why using it sparingly indoors would be any safer than using it sparingly outdoors.
The risk isn't from SLRs or compact cameras, it's from the people who emit a steady stream of blurry, compromising pictures from their cell phone cameras directly onto thing like Twitter. Now, they probably don't really care about privacy anyway, but it's worth noting.
Most RAW processing software preserves the tags embedded in the RAW file.
Presumably if you're doing RAW processing you're smart enough to know what EXIF is and make a conscious decision about which tags you want in your web-posted JPEG, but you never know.
The location data can be very wrong. If you don't have an adequate line of sight to the sky the phone will use cell towers to triangulate. If you can't see enough of them, it will use a wifi database to guess. If you've got a crappy (or no) cell connection but a clear view of the sky it might take a considerable amount of time for the GPS to lock on.
As of today, if the US wants to take out an enemy threat they send a little drone to follow the guy around. When he ends up without 20 innocent people crowded around him, the little drone fires a missile at him.
Sometimes it doesn't work exactly as expected and there's some collateral damage anyway. It's not that different from how an orbital laser assassination system would work.
Try putting diesel in your gas tank next time you fill up your gasoline car and you'll find out.
Well, theoretically he could have been using the notebook for five or six years and then gone, uh, to Windows 98. Then only the word "back" would have required time travel.
You have to give the guy making stuff up on the Internet the benefit of the doubt, you know.
"The only legitimate way to get an iPhone application to our customer organizations so that they can distribute the application to their employees would be to give them the source code such that they could compile and distribute the binaries using their Apple enterprise developer license. The enterprise license does not allow you to distribute the provisioning profile/binaries to non-employees. There's no way around this."
The the part that didn't come through - that you're selling the same app to multiple customers. I can see that being against Apple's terms. Developing code for someone isn't.
There is a way around distributing your source code. You send your customer the binary and they sign it using their enterprise developer key. That's the same thing Apple does when you submit an app, except that their key works for everybody.
Ah, I did. Otherwise I would have non-rebutted your non-rebuttal with more humorous references to fat.
Strange. I thought it meant "likely doomed to another half decade of slave labour."
I've never been able to figure out how the acronym works, but it must be in there somewhere.
Battery fires are very unlikely to actually bring down a plane. Or kill anyone.
Even on the ground, where there are a lot more batteries, I've never heard of anyone being killed, or even really injured, by a battery. Now, if you believe in spontaneous human combustion, it does actually kill people occasionally, although it has never brought down a plane (or caused a fatality on one) either.
Therefore, both fat people and batteries are likely safe to fly on planes, although the fat person might be somewhat more dangerous, judging by our experience on the ground.