Fring claims they are supporting VOIP over 3G now. What you mean, and what wasn't clear in your other posts, is that Apple hasn't specifically approved a VOIP over 3G app yet because Fring managed to enable theirs without an app update. That's true, but they also haven't pulled the plug on Fring, which they are more than capable of doing and have done in the past.
For $30 I have 6 GB of data transfer a month - way more than I can hope to use on the phone. For $35/month I have 100 minutes of anytime voice. See why I might want to use VOIP, even for local calls?
What country is "So Am?" Wikipedia says lithium production is currently concentrated in several South American countries. You didn't mean the continent of South America, did you?
It's not necessary to not jailbreak your phone. Just remember to set your password when you install SSH. Same lesson applies to any machine you install SSH on.
Water decreases in density when it freezes because it forms a rigid crystal structure where there's quite a bit of empty space between molecules. Elements, such as carbon, can do that too, except the crystal structure is formed between atoms instead of molecules.
Since the story is about solid diamond being less dense than liquid, why would you claim that elements will always contract as they're cooled?
Yes. Actual image sensors are slightly more complicated than I've described, but as a first approximation they do behave that way. If you check the wikipedia page, you'll see that the light sensitive elements are basically photo-capacitors - definitely accumulators.
An additional complication is that image sensors never don't really register negative noise photons. Zero signal is as low as you can go. Averaging many exposures causes the noise to cancel, leaving signal, which is consistent from frame to frame. However, since very low amplitude noise does not cancel, there will always be a noise floor (and a noise floor that follows a skewed distribution at that) that very weak signals can get lost in, no matter how much averaging you do.
Film needs a lot of photons to cause a grain of silver to "flip." You needed long exposures to get any image at all on film, and long exposures are hard. The solution was to build bigger telescopes or to improve your tracking so you could do longer exposures.
Digital sensors are much more sensitive than film, and linear over a much greater portion of their dynamic range, but a lot of that sensitivity is lost in noise. You can recover it though, by averaging many frames. That works, but it's not a miracle - it has limits. So telescopes are much more powerful now, simply because the sensors are better. Once you hit those limits you're still back to building bigger telescopes or improving your tracking though.
If you think about it, you realize that the sensors used by astronomers MUST work this way. As I said, if the OP was correct that 100 one second exposures is the equivalent of 1 100 second exposure then astronomy would be very different. A large aperture telescope would be much less important and nobody would bother tracking. All astronomical exposures would be made at some exposure that is a fraction of a second to minimize movement. Astronomers, amateur or professional, simply do not take 1/1000 s exposures (unless they're looking at a bright target like the sun or a nearby planet).
I used to have a link to an amateur astrophotograher's page where he went deep into the physics and noise characteristics of CCD sensors. I can't find it, but you can probably find something similar. Amateur astrophotographers are generally very knowledgeable about their tools.
The art should be understandable. The audience should be able to understand it with a reasonable effort. The artist should certainly understand it.
If I draw a strip on a white canvas and then claim it is great art, that's fine. But unless there's a reason why I drew a stripe on a white canvas it's not good art. If there's no reason why I did it and I'm relying on someone else to make up something plausible, I am a fraud as an artist.
No, but it doesn't make it good art either. The poster I replied to implied that if he didn't think a piece of art was good it was his failing, not the artist's.
If I write or say something and nobody, or very few people, understand what I've said, the failing is not theirs. Either they are not the audience my message was intended for (no fault of their own), or my message was not clear. Art is a communication medium, just like writing and speaking.
From other posts it seems this particular artist is mostly interested in exploring ways to make himself money, so I guess anyone who doesn't want to give him money for very little in return is not part of his target audience.
True, but it's still very, very shoddy work. You don't cite "grey literature" in a scientific work. You also don't write something you know to be dubious, wait and see if someone else catches it, then publish it if no one does.
Mistakes like this are of course a boon to anti-global warming people. They're a blow to the pro-global warming people, and they're a huge annoyance to the people who actually want to know what's going on because they demonstrate that the IPCC is not itself a first rate source. Any IPCC reference should now be checked very carefully to see what IT cites.
"When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist."
Are you kidding? Scientific debates rage about the mechanics of evolution. Theories like kin selection go in and out of favour. If someone could come up with a good, scientific alternative to the whole theory of evolution that describes the data better, he or she most definitely would. That would be your-name-gets-remembered-forever kind of stuff.
Behe is most famous for his argument that certain structures are irreducibly complex. That objection has most certainly been taken seriously by evolutionary science. A lot of work has been put into gathering evidence to show that the so-called irreducibly complex structures can be reduced. There is also a nice body of genetic work actually showing how individual mutations control incremental developments of things like the eye.
Behe is marginalized not because he raised valid objections to evolution but because he continues to cling to them with no evidence and practices "science" by press release.
Of course scientists have an agenda. Particularly when they work directly for a large political organization.
I don't believe the IPCC report was peer reviewed, was it? Not that peer review is a guarantee, but somebody probably would have caught on that such a big claim wasn't referenced.
"Yes, it in no way undermines the rest of the IPCC report, but the report should still be held to the highest standards of rigour."
No, it does legitimately cast suspicion on the rest of the IPCC report. If they put one thing in the report based on unsubstantiated news articles then the rigour they used in other areas of the report is questionable. Their conclusions may still be correct, but the quality of the report itself is very much diminished.
This was a stupid, stupid mistake. They should have known better.
Slashdot Mirror
Fring claims they are supporting VOIP over 3G now. What you mean, and what wasn't clear in your other posts, is that Apple hasn't specifically approved a VOIP over 3G app yet because Fring managed to enable theirs without an app update. That's true, but they also haven't pulled the plug on Fring, which they are more than capable of doing and have done in the past.
Skype requires an update. They've said they've got one all ready to go.
I think all that information was actually in the summary.
For $30 I have 6 GB of data transfer a month - way more than I can hope to use on the phone. For $35/month I have 100 minutes of anytime voice. See why I might want to use VOIP, even for local calls?
Let's see, synching over USB is pretty slow. USB has a raw transfer rate of 480 Mb/s. Bluetooth maxes out at 3 Mb/s. See the problem?
It's done. You can have a bluetooth keyboard on your jailbroken phone. There's experimental support for a mouse as well.
What country is "So Am?" Wikipedia says lithium production is currently concentrated in several South American countries. You didn't mean the continent of South America, did you?
She'll be particularly unimpressed when it turns her finger black. And then the finger falls off.
Hey, there you go, for those who enjoy paying their cell company twice, there's one with 3G and accompanying data plan!
Were you going to leave your phone at home?
Laptop? How about a phone?
Mobile does not mean connects to a cellular network. That association is a very recent affliction.
It's got bluetooth. It should tether with anything.
You can tether it if you want. Or just download stuff to it that you want before you go. It's not really a problem.
Putting cell connectivity in this thing would be the kiss of death. Who wants to pay for ANOTHER cell contract?
You're right. On Android they call it "rooting."
It's not necessary to not jailbreak your phone. Just remember to set your password when you install SSH. Same lesson applies to any machine you install SSH on.
Water decreases in density when it freezes because it forms a rigid crystal structure where there's quite a bit of empty space between molecules. Elements, such as carbon, can do that too, except the crystal structure is formed between atoms instead of molecules.
Since the story is about solid diamond being less dense than liquid, why would you claim that elements will always contract as they're cooled?
Yes. Actual image sensors are slightly more complicated than I've described, but as a first approximation they do behave that way. If you check the wikipedia page, you'll see that the light sensitive elements are basically photo-capacitors - definitely accumulators.
An additional complication is that image sensors never don't really register negative noise photons. Zero signal is as low as you can go. Averaging many exposures causes the noise to cancel, leaving signal, which is consistent from frame to frame. However, since very low amplitude noise does not cancel, there will always be a noise floor (and a noise floor that follows a skewed distribution at that) that very weak signals can get lost in, no matter how much averaging you do.
Film needs a lot of photons to cause a grain of silver to "flip." You needed long exposures to get any image at all on film, and long exposures are hard. The solution was to build bigger telescopes or to improve your tracking so you could do longer exposures.
Digital sensors are much more sensitive than film, and linear over a much greater portion of their dynamic range, but a lot of that sensitivity is lost in noise. You can recover it though, by averaging many frames. That works, but it's not a miracle - it has limits. So telescopes are much more powerful now, simply because the sensors are better. Once you hit those limits you're still back to building bigger telescopes or improving your tracking though.
If you think about it, you realize that the sensors used by astronomers MUST work this way. As I said, if the OP was correct that 100 one second exposures is the equivalent of 1 100 second exposure then astronomy would be very different. A large aperture telescope would be much less important and nobody would bother tracking. All astronomical exposures would be made at some exposure that is a fraction of a second to minimize movement. Astronomers, amateur or professional, simply do not take 1/1000 s exposures (unless they're looking at a bright target like the sun or a nearby planet).
I used to have a link to an amateur astrophotograher's page where he went deep into the physics and noise characteristics of CCD sensors. I can't find it, but you can probably find something similar. Amateur astrophotographers are generally very knowledgeable about their tools.
No, you have assumed incorrectly.
The art should be understandable. The audience should be able to understand it with a reasonable effort. The artist should certainly understand it.
If I draw a strip on a white canvas and then claim it is great art, that's fine. But unless there's a reason why I drew a stripe on a white canvas it's not good art. If there's no reason why I did it and I'm relying on someone else to make up something plausible, I am a fraud as an artist.
Numerous reports hey? Just like there are numerous complaints about any product?
AT&T have publicly blamed iPhone users for overloading their network. That's a bit more official than a bunch of "reports."
No, but it doesn't make it good art either. The poster I replied to implied that if he didn't think a piece of art was good it was his failing, not the artist's.
If I write or say something and nobody, or very few people, understand what I've said, the failing is not theirs. Either they are not the audience my message was intended for (no fault of their own), or my message was not clear. Art is a communication medium, just like writing and speaking.
From other posts it seems this particular artist is mostly interested in exploring ways to make himself money, so I guess anyone who doesn't want to give him money for very little in return is not part of his target audience.
This is why it's important to actually do science. Your opinion is wrong.
True, but it's still very, very shoddy work. You don't cite "grey literature" in a scientific work. You also don't write something you know to be dubious, wait and see if someone else catches it, then publish it if no one does.
Mistakes like this are of course a boon to anti-global warming people. They're a blow to the pro-global warming people, and they're a huge annoyance to the people who actually want to know what's going on because they demonstrate that the IPCC is not itself a first rate source. Any IPCC reference should now be checked very carefully to see what IT cites.
Yes, the original mistake was a typo. The IPCC mistake was NOT a typo. It was using information from dubious sources without checking it.
The actual typo/dates don't matter. If the IPCC report had said 2350 it would still be a problem.
"When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist."
Are you kidding? Scientific debates rage about the mechanics of evolution. Theories like kin selection go in and out of favour. If someone could come up with a good, scientific alternative to the whole theory of evolution that describes the data better, he or she most definitely would. That would be your-name-gets-remembered-forever kind of stuff.
Behe is most famous for his argument that certain structures are irreducibly complex. That objection has most certainly been taken seriously by evolutionary science. A lot of work has been put into gathering evidence to show that the so-called irreducibly complex structures can be reduced. There is also a nice body of genetic work actually showing how individual mutations control incremental developments of things like the eye.
Behe is marginalized not because he raised valid objections to evolution but because he continues to cling to them with no evidence and practices "science" by press release.
Of course scientists have an agenda. Particularly when they work directly for a large political organization.
I don't believe the IPCC report was peer reviewed, was it? Not that peer review is a guarantee, but somebody probably would have caught on that such a big claim wasn't referenced.
"Yes, it in no way undermines the rest of the IPCC report, but the report should still be held to the highest standards of rigour."
No, it does legitimately cast suspicion on the rest of the IPCC report. If they put one thing in the report based on unsubstantiated news articles then the rigour they used in other areas of the report is questionable. Their conclusions may still be correct, but the quality of the report itself is very much diminished.
This was a stupid, stupid mistake. They should have known better.
It's also not a problem with either the iPhone or the users. The phone works just fine on other carriers' networks in other countries.