No, it's not "shocking" that authorities would arrest someone who knowingly committed a minor crime rather than investigate
And it is even less shocking that the police would arrest someone who is currently committing a crime in public while still investigating a potential crime committed by the officials of a company. As in, they can see the protesters committing the crime, but it may take a while to examine documents to determine liability in a corporate environment.
Where did we get the idea that arresting protesters in the act meant that they were arrested INSTEAD of someone else who allegedly committed some other, corporate crime?
Apple states this is a backdoor, which THEY PUT INTO THE SYSTEM just so they could support customers who forget their encryption keys. They did this of their own free will, and they have no problem using it when a customer asks. They even have no problem using it when the employer of a customer asks. A friend of mine passed away, and Apple happily unlocked his Macbook so the employer could look through all his files for anything work related.
But when a court issues the appropriate warrant regarding one person's phone, who is under indictment for a mass-shooting incident of many innocent people in a disability assistance facility, they say "no way". It becomes a case of unwarranted government surveillance and eavesdropping on everyday citizens, and we certainly cannot have that. "What's next", some mass intrusion into the daily lives of Mom and Pop and little Billy for searching for the word ISIS on Google? No, what's next is the next warrant for the next alleged criminal to look at one phone for evidence of that specific crime.
Aliexpress has battery-powered hand-held green laser "pointers" up to 500 mW
A 500mW laser is not a "cat toy", unless you really do not like your cat and want to blind it. As I said, this is not a problem of "$5 cat toys". Trying to paint it as such is disingenuous at best.
If repair is impractical, your "right to repair" is meaningless.
I cannot afford a gun. Does that mean my right to keep and bear is meaningless? I.e., no, repairing the vast majority of electronic gadgets is beyond the imagination, much less the ability, of the vast majority of gadget owners these days. They can't see, much less properly desolder and replace a surface mount thingy that's so very very small, or even the ones that are large but have a hundred or more pins holding them down. (Yes, I'm sure someone will post how easy it is for him to do that because he has the hot-air rework station and access to the parts, but he's an aberration, not the norm.)
That doesn't change your right to try to repair something you own.
Unless, of course, what you really want is assurance that the manufacturer will bail you out if you screw up badly enough.
Yes, that's the crux of the matter. You are free to try to repair your Apple devices, but Apple is free to say "you void the warranty when you do that." I've seen many of those "warranty void if opened" stickers on things, and not one of them has been a serious impediment to my repair efforts. Voiding a warranty doesn't prohibit you from trying to repair something; you are free to do that.
You don't seem to be understanding the natural language explanation of your confusion,
No, what YOU are not understanding is that "knowing" in this context cannot be knowing how the event actually occurred, but only knowing what other people claim about how the event occurred.
When you ask someone if they believe that "humans evolved from lesser animals", you are not asking if they know it happened, you are asking if they believe the people who claim that it happened that way. This is being paraded as scientific illiteracy, when the truth is that it is quite possible, indeed likely, that people know about evolution but just do not believe that it is the way things happened. Therefore, they KNOW but do not BELIEVE.
The people who claim it happened that way do not know, they only know that the current observations agree with predictions of what we would see if that were the way it happened. They BELIEVE they KNOW, which is a different concept.
But they can't know "Humans evolved" without believing "Humans evolved".
Since nobody can know, the context of the question about evolution cannot be as you state it here.
I didn't say they were synonymous. I was effectively pointing out that people are confusing the two.
You lept from a statement about trusting "government experts" right to trusting "scientific conclusions." Since "government experts" are not, for the most part, scientists, they have no scientific conclusions to trust.
And you limited the trust comparison to "American government officials" and "European government officials", when that is not what the original comparison was between.
Europeans don't believe in "scientific conclusions",
Wow.
Criticizing an argument about statistics (of anything) by saying it is "tough to generalize" is imbecilic.
No, the point is that comparing "government officials" to "Europeans" is imbecilic, because there are government officials who are European.
Nowhere did I make any statements about the relative quality of US and European government experts.
Nor did I. I asked the question that follows from the initial comparison. If we trust government officials more than Europeans, then do we trust European government officials more (because they are government officials), or less (because they are European)? Does it matter which government they are officials in?
What people should strongly distrust is European ideas
We already trust Europeans less than government officials, you want us to trust them even less?
We can test it. Follow the sign for a bit, and see if there's a Joe making food.
The question of whether or not it is a "sign" (in either sense) does not depend on the existence of Joe, or who is making the food.
In the pedantic sense, both people know it is a sign because it has all the properties of the object called "sign", as found in the dictionary. If the scientist is saying that he doesn't know if it is a sign or not tells us he is either not a native English speaker or is ignorant.
Whether it is a "sign" or not depends on whether there was a pre-existing concern such as "we need food soon, where should we go to eat", that this sign could be a metaphysical answer to.
We are controlling Nature. All the time. That's the whole point of being a planning, rationale being. We control the amount of rain water that hits our skin by staying indoors
That is not controlling "nature", that is controlling our individual environment.
The difference is like when your Mother tells you to stop turning the air conditioning in the basement down below 72, and when she yells at you to close the damn door because "we aren't air conditioning the entire neighborhood".
You can know that others believe something without believing it, but you cannot know the thing that they believe unless you also believe it.
Yes, I certainly can. I gave several examples of this already. I know what strict creationists believe, but I do not have to believe it to know it.
One is about the world. One is about what a book says about the world.
Just as knowing that evolution as a mechanism for change in organisms over time exists is knowing about the world, and knowing that humans evolved from lesser life forms is knowing what scientists say about the world. Any discussion that talks about people "knowing" that evolution is how humans came to be is a discussion about what someone says about the world, not the world itself. Therefore, I can know what someone says about the world but not believe it. That knowledge does not require a belief.
The article is about a crybaby pilot who was annoyed and turned around to stop and pout, not a laser shooting down an airliner.
Oh, for heaven's sake, nobody is claiming that handheld laser pointers are shooting down aircraft. There's a broad range of damage between blinding a pilot (even temporarily) and shooting down a 747 full of babies. It's simply dishonest to try to paint the discussion as an issue of "shooting down an airliner" when you know very well it isn't.
Cause either planes have windows in the floor or they take off upside down now.
You do realize that the pilots have a really good reason to be able to see the ground from where they sit in an airplane, right? Like, to be able to land, to be able to identify landmarks below them, etc. While instrument approaches are really convenient, unfortunately they tend to slow down the rate at which an airport can handle incoming aircraft, It is much faster to clear an aircraft for "the visual approach", which means they have to 1) see the airport, and 2) see ground reference points that may be part of the approach. For example, Mill Visual 28 approach is based on several visual landmarks.
I just done see how a plane at a 45 degree angle or higher at takeoff
Aircraft are not at a 45 degree angle or higher while taking off. During flight they will be at an even lower angle.
If you think that the lasers being used to do this are $5 cat toys, you are ignorant. It is disingenuous at best to pretend that the problem is $5 cat toys.
then the aircraft itself is deeply flawed
Yeah, because having a large machine operated by a human being who needs eyesight to do it safely is such a flawed concept.
Of course, despite all the whinging, there's never been a documented case of that it actually happening.
You are posting in a discussion about a documented case of it happening.
Americans trust government experts less than Europeans trust government experts. Therefore, statistically, you will find a greater rejection of scientific conclusions
I'm sorry, but when did "government experts" become synonymous with "scientific conclusions"? I distrust the scientific veracity of almost all "government experts", simply because there is too much politics involved in being a government anything. For example, the "government experts" who pronounce the value of carbon taxes are seldom scientists, even though they happily claim a scientific basis for having carbon taxes.
There was one "government expert" I trusted, because I knew him and I trusted his scientific opinion. He got fired because he didn't agree with the consensus method of doing science or the result it produced.
It's not a "tough choice to generalize here" at all unless you are a total imbecile.
It's a tough choice to generalize because "government experts" and "Europeans" are not orthogonal concepts. There are an awful lot of "government experts" in Europe. And, due to lax immigration policies, a lot of US "government experts" are European. In general, do we trust Europeans in the government more or less because they are European?
Would you ever say that you know God created the Earth in six days if you didn't believe it? No, knowledge of a proposition entails belief of the proposition.
The knowledge of that proposition is not the same as believing it. I know of the proposition that it is "turtles all the way down", and I know of the proposition of the geocentric universe, but neither require that I believe them to know them.
You have it exactly backwards. You cannot believe a proposition unless you know of it, but you can know of it without believing it.
But being aware that scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old is not the same as knowing that the universe is that old.
You're right. You do not know that it is that old. You know that, assuming certain things, a value of 13.8 billion years is consistent with current observations. You know of the proposition, but you do not need to believe it to know of it.
That's the same thing with evolution. You can know about the physical processes involved in genetics. You can know about fossil evidence. And yet, you do not need to believe that either one (or both combined) are the cause of the existence of certain animals on this planet.
Without observing the event, you cannot truly know how it happened. You can have a complete knowledge of the processes that were alleged to have occurred to achieve the result, but that doesn't mean you must believe that that's how it happened.
To have the latter, you have to also agree with the scientists.
You have to do more than that. You have to ignore the fact that they don't know, either. They believe. It is unfortunate the lay use of the term has been adapted by scientists who want to project a level of certainty about their work. It causes confusion just like what this study finds.
Did God create the Earth in six days? There are no observations that can back up an answer either way. You can say "this observation today is consistent with a process that spanned billions of years." But then, a forged painting also produces observations that are "consistent with a painting produced by Van Gogh", and yet it was not.
And for various reasons, Americans trust government experts less than Europeans.
It's a tough choice to generalize here. I know some government officials I trust, some I don't. I know some Europeans I trust, some I don't. Maybe the percentage of the trustworthy Euros is a bit higher...
But then, what if some of the Europeans I know are government officials? Do I trust them or not?
I'd be curious how we are supposed to understand knowledge coupled with disbelief of the thing that's allegedly known.
I have knowledge of copper and oxygen and what wires do. That does not mean I believe that deoxygenated copper audio cables distort the signals they carry less than regular old copper ones.
I have knowledge of hydrogen generators and automotive fuel systems and the claims of some that feeding an engine hydrogen split from water by the automotive 12V system will improve gas milage, but I do not believe those claims.
I have knowledge of a person called Orenthal James Simpson, that there was a glove that was soaked in a water-based fluid that did not fit his hand during a contrived courtroom stunt, and a claim that since the glove did not fit, he was not guilty of a charge of killing his wife. And yet I do not believe that his failure to get the glove onto his hand means he was innocent.
I have knowledge of pigments and brush styles, of men through history who have applied pigments to canvas in a manner that many find pleasing, and yet I do not necessarily believe that any specific one of them actually applied the pigments to the canvas of the object I am looking at just because the result looks like something they might have done.
I have knowledge of coins and probability and can calculate the odds of certain results, and even though I know that there is a 1/64 chance of six coin flips all coming up "heads", I still do not believe that a recent set of six coin flips was the unlikely result of chance.
And finally, I have knowledge of a speedometer in my car that has "140" as the highest marking on the dial, but I do not believe for a second that my car, even when brand new, would achieve that speed.
It is quite trivial to have knowledge of basic processes and claims about how those processes combine to make a larger system, and yet disbelieve that those processes are how the existing system came to be.
Which show is this the pilot episode script for, and when does it air? Sounds awesome.
Ice Road Truckers, Iceland.
I'll watch anything with Lisa Kelley in it, and I have to admit watching Art Burke routinely driving his truck to the point of destruction and then trying to excuse it is pretty funny. M'boy!
God forbid you ask them their phone number. This generation of people barely know that.
Why should I know my own phone number? I never need to call myself. Anything I want to say to myself I can say in person. Unless, of course, I'm in a place where talking is inappropriate and then I have to call myself at home and leave a message.
And if you're asking me for my phone number so you can call me, why don't you just tell me what it is you want to call me about instead?
It all just seems very inefficient to have to remember my own phone number.
all that "post-processing" could probably be done on the fly if you really needed to, provided things like base stations still existed,
WAAS and DGPS ground stations are all over the place, and you can access the DGPS correction data using a wireless modem. It is used for maritime and aviation navigation at a minimum.
The concern that created SA was not for long-term stationary measurements, but on-the-move guidance for troops and weapons systems which would not have nearby fixed station correction data.
The pubic uses of GPS are so numerous and critical that selective availability will never be turned back on. Also, there are too many other options (GLOSNASS, for one) for turning SA back on to be a solution to enemy use of GPS.
Besides, in time of war, the enemy will just track you using your cellphone transmitter and drop a bomb on you that way. There's the old saying, "there's no such thing as 'close enough', except in horse shoes, hand grenades... and atom bombs."
RTK is more accurate than 42 cm. But that is not true GPS I suppose.
What? Why wouldn't using GPS for position information be "GPS"?
DGPS is accurate to 10 cm though.
If DGPS is "GPS" then so is RTK. Both require fixed station correction information. RTK adds in phase measurements of the GPS carrier signal to get to cm accuracy.
Will it? Will it be "opt out" like Yahoo's "important posts" in Yahoo Groups are "opt out"? I'm referring to the ads that show up mixed in with the actual group messages.
I'm pretty sure that important stories and world-news stories are going to keep getting enough likes to keep them on top.
I'm sorry, but if I'm not following someone or something, I don't want to see their twits ever. I don't care if a million strangers all vote up a twit telling them about cheap viagra, I don't want to see it, and it isn't important. And don't dismiss the idea that if voting up twits makes them show up on more screens that twit-spammers won't create the users to vote their stuff up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not "shocking" that authorities would arrest someone who knowingly committed a minor crime rather than investigate
And it is even less shocking that the police would arrest someone who is currently committing a crime in public while still investigating a potential crime committed by the officials of a company. As in, they can see the protesters committing the crime, but it may take a while to examine documents to determine liability in a corporate environment.
Where did we get the idea that arresting protesters in the act meant that they were arrested INSTEAD of someone else who allegedly committed some other, corporate crime?
But when a court issues the appropriate warrant regarding one person's phone, who is under indictment for a mass-shooting incident of many innocent people in a disability assistance facility, they say "no way". It becomes a case of unwarranted government surveillance and eavesdropping on everyday citizens, and we certainly cannot have that. "What's next", some mass intrusion into the daily lives of Mom and Pop and little Billy for searching for the word ISIS on Google? No, what's next is the next warrant for the next alleged criminal to look at one phone for evidence of that specific crime.
Apple is in the wrong on this.
Aliexpress has battery-powered hand-held green laser "pointers" up to 500 mW
A 500mW laser is not a "cat toy", unless you really do not like your cat and want to blind it. As I said, this is not a problem of "$5 cat toys". Trying to paint it as such is disingenuous at best.
If repair is impractical, your "right to repair" is meaningless.
I cannot afford a gun. Does that mean my right to keep and bear is meaningless? I.e., no, repairing the vast majority of electronic gadgets is beyond the imagination, much less the ability, of the vast majority of gadget owners these days. They can't see, much less properly desolder and replace a surface mount thingy that's so very very small, or even the ones that are large but have a hundred or more pins holding them down. (Yes, I'm sure someone will post how easy it is for him to do that because he has the hot-air rework station and access to the parts, but he's an aberration, not the norm.)
That doesn't change your right to try to repair something you own.
Unless, of course, what you really want is assurance that the manufacturer will bail you out if you screw up badly enough.
Yes, that's the crux of the matter. You are free to try to repair your Apple devices, but Apple is free to say "you void the warranty when you do that." I've seen many of those "warranty void if opened" stickers on things, and not one of them has been a serious impediment to my repair efforts. Voiding a warranty doesn't prohibit you from trying to repair something; you are free to do that.
You don't seem to be understanding the natural language explanation of your confusion,
No, what YOU are not understanding is that "knowing" in this context cannot be knowing how the event actually occurred, but only knowing what other people claim about how the event occurred.
When you ask someone if they believe that "humans evolved from lesser animals", you are not asking if they know it happened, you are asking if they believe the people who claim that it happened that way. This is being paraded as scientific illiteracy, when the truth is that it is quite possible, indeed likely, that people know about evolution but just do not believe that it is the way things happened. Therefore, they KNOW but do not BELIEVE.
The people who claim it happened that way do not know, they only know that the current observations agree with predictions of what we would see if that were the way it happened. They BELIEVE they KNOW, which is a different concept.
But they can't know "Humans evolved" without believing "Humans evolved".
Since nobody can know, the context of the question about evolution cannot be as you state it here.
I didn't say they were synonymous. I was effectively pointing out that people are confusing the two.
You lept from a statement about trusting "government experts" right to trusting "scientific conclusions." Since "government experts" are not, for the most part, scientists, they have no scientific conclusions to trust.
And you limited the trust comparison to "American government officials" and "European government officials", when that is not what the original comparison was between.
Europeans don't believe in "scientific conclusions",
Wow.
Criticizing an argument about statistics (of anything) by saying it is "tough to generalize" is imbecilic.
No, the point is that comparing "government officials" to "Europeans" is imbecilic, because there are government officials who are European.
Nowhere did I make any statements about the relative quality of US and European government experts.
Nor did I. I asked the question that follows from the initial comparison. If we trust government officials more than Europeans, then do we trust European government officials more (because they are government officials), or less (because they are European)? Does it matter which government they are officials in?
What people should strongly distrust is European ideas
We already trust Europeans less than government officials, you want us to trust them even less?
We can test it. Follow the sign for a bit, and see if there's a Joe making food.
The question of whether or not it is a "sign" (in either sense) does not depend on the existence of Joe, or who is making the food.
In the pedantic sense, both people know it is a sign because it has all the properties of the object called "sign", as found in the dictionary. If the scientist is saying that he doesn't know if it is a sign or not tells us he is either not a native English speaker or is ignorant.
Whether it is a "sign" or not depends on whether there was a pre-existing concern such as "we need food soon, where should we go to eat", that this sign could be a metaphysical answer to.
We are controlling Nature. All the time. That's the whole point of being a planning, rationale being. We control the amount of rain water that hits our skin by staying indoors
That is not controlling "nature", that is controlling our individual environment.
The difference is like when your Mother tells you to stop turning the air conditioning in the basement down below 72, and when she yells at you to close the damn door because "we aren't air conditioning the entire neighborhood".
I just want to have the right to shoot you when you try to escape the rising water levels by climbing up onto my hill.
You want the right to commit cold blooded murder of a refugee?
Would that go into the statistics for death due to "deranged gun owning maniac", or the column for "death due to climate change"?
Or both?
You can know that others believe something without believing it, but you cannot know the thing that they believe unless you also believe it.
Yes, I certainly can. I gave several examples of this already. I know what strict creationists believe, but I do not have to believe it to know it.
One is about the world. One is about what a book says about the world.
Just as knowing that evolution as a mechanism for change in organisms over time exists is knowing about the world, and knowing that humans evolved from lesser life forms is knowing what scientists say about the world. Any discussion that talks about people "knowing" that evolution is how humans came to be is a discussion about what someone says about the world, not the world itself. Therefore, I can know what someone says about the world but not believe it. That knowledge does not require a belief.
The article is about a crybaby pilot who was annoyed and turned around to stop and pout, not a laser shooting down an airliner.
Oh, for heaven's sake, nobody is claiming that handheld laser pointers are shooting down aircraft. There's a broad range of damage between blinding a pilot (even temporarily) and shooting down a 747 full of babies. It's simply dishonest to try to paint the discussion as an issue of "shooting down an airliner" when you know very well it isn't.
Cause either planes have windows in the floor or they take off upside down now.
You do realize that the pilots have a really good reason to be able to see the ground from where they sit in an airplane, right? Like, to be able to land, to be able to identify landmarks below them, etc. While instrument approaches are really convenient, unfortunately they tend to slow down the rate at which an airport can handle incoming aircraft, It is much faster to clear an aircraft for "the visual approach", which means they have to 1) see the airport, and 2) see ground reference points that may be part of the approach. For example, Mill Visual 28 approach is based on several visual landmarks.
I just done see how a plane at a 45 degree angle or higher at takeoff
Aircraft are not at a 45 degree angle or higher while taking off. During flight they will be at an even lower angle.
I still maintain that if a $5 cat toy
If you think that the lasers being used to do this are $5 cat toys, you are ignorant. It is disingenuous at best to pretend that the problem is $5 cat toys.
then the aircraft itself is deeply flawed
Yeah, because having a large machine operated by a human being who needs eyesight to do it safely is such a flawed concept.
Of course, despite all the whinging, there's never been a documented case of that it actually happening.
You are posting in a discussion about a documented case of it happening.
Americans trust government experts less than Europeans trust government experts. Therefore, statistically, you will find a greater rejection of scientific conclusions
I'm sorry, but when did "government experts" become synonymous with "scientific conclusions"? I distrust the scientific veracity of almost all "government experts", simply because there is too much politics involved in being a government anything. For example, the "government experts" who pronounce the value of carbon taxes are seldom scientists, even though they happily claim a scientific basis for having carbon taxes.
There was one "government expert" I trusted, because I knew him and I trusted his scientific opinion. He got fired because he didn't agree with the consensus method of doing science or the result it produced.
It's not a "tough choice to generalize here" at all unless you are a total imbecile.
It's a tough choice to generalize because "government experts" and "Europeans" are not orthogonal concepts. There are an awful lot of "government experts" in Europe. And, due to lax immigration policies, a lot of US "government experts" are European. In general, do we trust Europeans in the government more or less because they are European?
Would you ever say that you know God created the Earth in six days if you didn't believe it? No, knowledge of a proposition entails belief of the proposition.
The knowledge of that proposition is not the same as believing it. I know of the proposition that it is "turtles all the way down", and I know of the proposition of the geocentric universe, but neither require that I believe them to know them.
You have it exactly backwards. You cannot believe a proposition unless you know of it, but you can know of it without believing it.
But being aware that scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old is not the same as knowing that the universe is that old.
You're right. You do not know that it is that old. You know that, assuming certain things, a value of 13.8 billion years is consistent with current observations. You know of the proposition, but you do not need to believe it to know of it.
That's the same thing with evolution. You can know about the physical processes involved in genetics. You can know about fossil evidence. And yet, you do not need to believe that either one (or both combined) are the cause of the existence of certain animals on this planet.
Without observing the event, you cannot truly know how it happened. You can have a complete knowledge of the processes that were alleged to have occurred to achieve the result, but that doesn't mean you must believe that that's how it happened.
To have the latter, you have to also agree with the scientists.
You have to do more than that. You have to ignore the fact that they don't know, either. They believe. It is unfortunate the lay use of the term has been adapted by scientists who want to project a level of certainty about their work. It causes confusion just like what this study finds.
Did God create the Earth in six days? There are no observations that can back up an answer either way. You can say "this observation today is consistent with a process that spanned billions of years." But then, a forged painting also produces observations that are "consistent with a painting produced by Van Gogh", and yet it was not.
And for various reasons, Americans trust government experts less than Europeans.
It's a tough choice to generalize here. I know some government officials I trust, some I don't. I know some Europeans I trust, some I don't. Maybe the percentage of the trustworthy Euros is a bit higher...
But then, what if some of the Europeans I know are government officials? Do I trust them or not?
I'd be curious how we are supposed to understand knowledge coupled with disbelief of the thing that's allegedly known.
I have knowledge of copper and oxygen and what wires do. That does not mean I believe that deoxygenated copper audio cables distort the signals they carry less than regular old copper ones.
I have knowledge of hydrogen generators and automotive fuel systems and the claims of some that feeding an engine hydrogen split from water by the automotive 12V system will improve gas milage, but I do not believe those claims.
I have knowledge of a person called Orenthal James Simpson, that there was a glove that was soaked in a water-based fluid that did not fit his hand during a contrived courtroom stunt, and a claim that since the glove did not fit, he was not guilty of a charge of killing his wife. And yet I do not believe that his failure to get the glove onto his hand means he was innocent.
I have knowledge of pigments and brush styles, of men through history who have applied pigments to canvas in a manner that many find pleasing, and yet I do not necessarily believe that any specific one of them actually applied the pigments to the canvas of the object I am looking at just because the result looks like something they might have done.
I have knowledge of coins and probability and can calculate the odds of certain results, and even though I know that there is a 1/64 chance of six coin flips all coming up "heads", I still do not believe that a recent set of six coin flips was the unlikely result of chance.
And finally, I have knowledge of a speedometer in my car that has "140" as the highest marking on the dial, but I do not believe for a second that my car, even when brand new, would achieve that speed.
It is quite trivial to have knowledge of basic processes and claims about how those processes combine to make a larger system, and yet disbelieve that those processes are how the existing system came to be.
Which show is this the pilot episode script for, and when does it air? Sounds awesome.
Ice Road Truckers, Iceland.
I'll watch anything with Lisa Kelley in it, and I have to admit watching Art Burke routinely driving his truck to the point of destruction and then trying to excuse it is pretty funny. M'boy!
God forbid you ask them their phone number. This generation of people barely know that.
Why should I know my own phone number? I never need to call myself. Anything I want to say to myself I can say in person. Unless, of course, I'm in a place where talking is inappropriate and then I have to call myself at home and leave a message.
And if you're asking me for my phone number so you can call me, why don't you just tell me what it is you want to call me about instead?
It all just seems very inefficient to have to remember my own phone number.
all that "post-processing" could probably be done on the fly if you really needed to, provided things like base stations still existed,
WAAS and DGPS ground stations are all over the place, and you can access the DGPS correction data using a wireless modem. It is used for maritime and aviation navigation at a minimum.
The concern that created SA was not for long-term stationary measurements, but on-the-move guidance for troops and weapons systems which would not have nearby fixed station correction data.
Besides, in time of war, the enemy will just track you using your cellphone transmitter and drop a bomb on you that way. There's the old saying, "there's no such thing as 'close enough', except in horse shoes, hand grenades ... and atom bombs."
RTK is more accurate than 42 cm. But that is not true GPS I suppose.
What? Why wouldn't using GPS for position information be "GPS"?
DGPS is accurate to 10 cm though.
If DGPS is "GPS" then so is RTK. Both require fixed station correction information. RTK adds in phase measurements of the GPS carrier signal to get to cm accuracy.
Because I don't quite know how to tell you this, but time travel hasn't actually been invented yet...
Time travel was invented next year.
Clearly, Clarissa didn't contribute anything, and Chris may or may not have contributed anything significant, it's hard to tell.
Yes it'll be opt-out eventually,
Will it? Will it be "opt out" like Yahoo's "important posts" in Yahoo Groups are "opt out"? I'm referring to the ads that show up mixed in with the actual group messages.
I'm pretty sure that important stories and world-news stories are going to keep getting enough likes to keep them on top.
I'm sorry, but if I'm not following someone or something, I don't want to see their twits ever. I don't care if a million strangers all vote up a twit telling them about cheap viagra, I don't want to see it, and it isn't important. And don't dismiss the idea that if voting up twits makes them show up on more screens that twit-spammers won't create the users to vote their stuff up.