I have a Schlage keypad with ZWave capability - though I have that turned off both because it drains the battery very quickly and because I can't fathom a reason to have a ZWave enabled lock...
The only thing I could come up with is rigging the alarm to send me an alert if the door is currently unlocked when the alarm is armed. But still not worth the roughly 10x battery life loss.
I'm worried that the neighborhood kids are going to lie in wait until I pair a new ZWave device, exploit this weakness, and then turn my ceiling fan on remotely.
Utter jingoistic nonsense. There is no evidence of this claim, yet you keep making it.
Who ever had guessed that?
Lots of people posited it over - as you say - 100 years or so. That does not mean there was scientific consensus.
Those models might have been bad, but what is the point about that?
That's the entire point. Without models you just have unproven theories. Without good models there was no consensus.
the average temperature has no predicting power about any particular point on the planet, it is pointless
I can't agree that it is "pointless". You are right in that it has no predictive power for any particular point on the globe, but it does tell you that there is more energy in the atmosphere. More energy is increasingly being tied to more severe weather, though admittedly this is still somewhat contentious.
No, I'm definitely not proposing a worker co-op. My suggestion is giving workers equal voice, not necessarily worker equity. If there is worker equity in my suggestion, it's an implementation detail and would by definition be limited to about half stake.
I've been wondering lately if we don't have the incentives all wrong...
What if we created a corporation type that had half of all voting shares collectively owned by the employees, no matter what? Perhaps share ownership isn't the way to do it - maybe it would just be a representation matter. But the gist is that employees and owners would have equal parts in the running of the business. You could make this arrangement very tax-advantaged as a way to encourage adoption of this structure.
Then you could extract this kind of regulatory hand from everything and let the employees and owners come to a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I'm not that smart, so I'm sure this is full of holes. I'm sure commenters here won't disappoint in pointing them out.
I completely agree. I disagree with with the AC grandparent who said that Sony hardware was overpriced and subpar - I felt like you always got what you paid for. Sure, they made some crap - but they also made stuff that was a good value. Their mid-range home theater stuff was always pretty nice.
But back to your point, even when I was super happy with my Sony product, it would have some weird non-standard thing that kept it from being perfect. For instance, I had a very nice Sony digital camera - but it used a MemoryStick even though standard storage had caught up in speed by that point. Ditto with a Sony-branded Palm organizer - MemoryStick was completely unnecessary in that product. I still can't believe how they dropped the ball with MiniDisc - they had, almost by accident, the best technology to take advantage of the MP3 craze... and they handed it to others.
I can't answer for the other AC, but "protecting people from stupid investments" isn't very high on my list. I don't think it's even possible without a massive new bureaucracy similar to the FDA in scale. At that point, the cost of getting and maintaining business plan approval would be onerous, and I don't even know how you would punish companies that don't live up to their expectations... the market already takes care of this nicely. In this case, MoviePass and their investors will lose everything - isn't that punishment enough? Why prevent them from raising money so long as all the numbers are right there for you to add up for yourself? It would be different if there was a lack of transparency.
That is certainly true, but the end product is very sensitive to the amount of gluten - someone baking bread is not going to use a high-gluten product meant for, say, pizza crust and vice versa.
The preservatives they use in bread products also differ.
She could very well have a sensitivity to some kind of additive or preservative. But according to the details of this story (which again is why I'm calling bullshit), she's decided it has something to do with either gluten or GMOs. And it is unlikely that US pasta (which often is a name brand imported from Italy) has the same preservatives as US bread. It's also very likely that Germans also eat Italian pasta, just like we do.
Either way, it has nothing to do with GMOs, since there isn't any GMO wheat on the market anywhere in the world. There are so many warnings of either a bullshit story or a crazy person here: self-diagnosed "gluten sensitivity", blaming GMOs when there aren't any GMOs present to blame, claims of things being OK in one geographic location but not in another, and not least of all posting as AC. Next let's just roll out stories of how our kids had their brains melted by non-existent mercury in vaccines.
what fucking government doesn't fudge the numbers at election time,
People are people, all over the world. There's nothing more evil or corrupt about a Chinese or Russian person.
With that said, some systems take this into account and some don't. If you can lie and get away with it, a lot more people will lie. Sure, some will still lie in societies where the data is open to inspection - but it's going to be a lot less prevalent. In the US you can say "Donald Trump is full of shit" and you can do so on national TV. You can show charts and info-graphics showing why he's full of shit. You won't convince everyone, but the data is at least out there. Pull that shit in China or Russia and your life is over. Worst case, prison - best case, you simply lose everything. As a result, the leaders can say whatever they want without repercussion. If they set a target of 7% growth, well then there is going to be 7% growth. If Trump wants 7% growth, he can claim it all he wants but the bureaucrats and economists won't toe the line.
GDP rant aside, the fact that they are cheating it is the news here - not how good or bad GDP is something reasonable to judge an economy by. If another measure was commonly used as a yardstick, they would likely cheat that instead.
Ideological arguments about taxation aside, that still is OK when calculating GDP... if you voluntarily gave money to the government and the government spent it, that would not pose a problem - the fact that the "spending" was involuntary doesn't really matter to the GDP calculation. Just make sure that you don't count the payment of taxes as spending so that it is double-counted.
First link - no one was disputing the effects of greenhouse gases. The disputes were all about measuring the man-made versus natural levels, and what proportion greenhouse gasses played in the overall climate budget.
Second link - he was an important scientist who helped eventually lead to our current understanding of the climate. His existence certainly does not prove that there was scientific consensus about AGW in the late 19th century. In fact, if you asked Tyndall himself about atmospheric CO2, he would have dismissed it as a minor component of the greenhouse effect compared to water vapor.
I think you are confusing scientific consensus in AGW with scientific consensus in the underlying theories and the basic science that drives the models. The models themselves weren't very good until the 80s, and could not separate man-made from natural warming convincingly until the 90s. They continue to improve, to the point where someone who was merely being skeptical in the 90s would have to be obstinate or a believer in conspiracy to continue in their skepticism.
What if the bias happens to NOT be a spurious correlation?
Then cascadingstylesheet's critique is valid.
white men really can't jump as well as black ones
Well, here's a good example... if you have a scientific reason to say this, then fine - it's a cold hard fact. But if you just happen to notice that blacks are overrepresented in athletics, that does not tell you whether blacks jump higher or whether blacks are raised in conditions which result in an emphasis on athletics. If you right an athlete-recruiting algorithm and it weights blacks for no particular reason other than this correlation... that is exactly the kind of thing you'd want to look into. You might even be justified in using the correlation as a stand-in, provided you can get your hands on self-identified racial data but not on whatever the real signal is. Just be careful how you use the results of your model.
So we police the poor areas more because there's more crime. Unfortunately those areas are more black because more black people are poor. Is that racist?
No, I don't think so - not in the way you describe it. That's just using the model to decide where to patrol. Just don't use it to screen individuals. Think of it like modeling an epidemic: it makes a lot of sense to use your computer model to decide where to deploy your resources, but you don't use the model to decide who to treat - for that you use established medical protocols. Obviously things like vaccines make this analogy imperfect, but hopefully you get my drift.
To be "fair", a model might operate on correlations - just a naive fit of the data. Some of these correlations might have a reasonable chance of reflecting cause and effect, and others might be a coincidence. In a perfect world, you'd suss out all of the bogus correlations - but if you are resource constrained, then going after the ones that are reinforcing systemic bias is a reasonable place to direct your efforts.
I formerly used a second hard drive as my sole backup. Lightning hit nearby and took out both hard drives - luckily between the two hard drives I was able to recover most of the files.
A second incident took out both hard drives when a mount failed and the top drive fell on to the lower drive.
You can dismiss me as a moron, or you can use my hard-won experience - no skin off my back. The point is now I make sure I have a backup at a separate geographic location, and now I understand why that is considered best practice.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Schlage keypad with ZWave capability - though I have that turned off both because it drains the battery very quickly and because I can't fathom a reason to have a ZWave enabled lock...
The only thing I could come up with is rigging the alarm to send me an alert if the door is currently unlocked when the alarm is armed. But still not worth the roughly 10x battery life loss.
I'm worried that the neighborhood kids are going to lie in wait until I pair a new ZWave device, exploit this weakness, and then turn my ceiling fan on remotely.
Ah, thanks. I knew I must be missing something!
Not free? Not open sores? Not sure the relevance to this discussion, other than it also is an email client. May as well say "try Outlook!".
There never was a dispute outside of the USA.
Utter jingoistic nonsense. There is no evidence of this claim, yet you keep making it.
Who ever had guessed that?
Lots of people posited it over - as you say - 100 years or so. That does not mean there was scientific consensus.
Those models might have been bad, but what is the point about that?
That's the entire point. Without models you just have unproven theories. Without good models there was no consensus.
the average temperature has no predicting power about any particular point on the planet, it is pointless
I can't agree that it is "pointless". You are right in that it has no predictive power for any particular point on the globe, but it does tell you that there is more energy in the atmosphere. More energy is increasingly being tied to more severe weather, though admittedly this is still somewhat contentious.
No, I'm definitely not proposing a worker co-op. My suggestion is giving workers equal voice, not necessarily worker equity. If there is worker equity in my suggestion, it's an implementation detail and would by definition be limited to about half stake.
I've been wondering lately if we don't have the incentives all wrong...
What if we created a corporation type that had half of all voting shares collectively owned by the employees, no matter what? Perhaps share ownership isn't the way to do it - maybe it would just be a representation matter. But the gist is that employees and owners would have equal parts in the running of the business. You could make this arrangement very tax-advantaged as a way to encourage adoption of this structure.
Then you could extract this kind of regulatory hand from everything and let the employees and owners come to a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I'm not that smart, so I'm sure this is full of holes. I'm sure commenters here won't disappoint in pointing them out.
I completely agree. I disagree with with the AC grandparent who said that Sony hardware was overpriced and subpar - I felt like you always got what you paid for. Sure, they made some crap - but they also made stuff that was a good value. Their mid-range home theater stuff was always pretty nice.
But back to your point, even when I was super happy with my Sony product, it would have some weird non-standard thing that kept it from being perfect. For instance, I had a very nice Sony digital camera - but it used a MemoryStick even though standard storage had caught up in speed by that point. Ditto with a Sony-branded Palm organizer - MemoryStick was completely unnecessary in that product. I still can't believe how they dropped the ball with MiniDisc - they had, almost by accident, the best technology to take advantage of the MP3 craze... and they handed it to others.
I can't answer for the other AC, but "protecting people from stupid investments" isn't very high on my list. I don't think it's even possible without a massive new bureaucracy similar to the FDA in scale. At that point, the cost of getting and maintaining business plan approval would be onerous, and I don't even know how you would punish companies that don't live up to their expectations... the market already takes care of this nicely. In this case, MoviePass and their investors will lose everything - isn't that punishment enough? Why prevent them from raising money so long as all the numbers are right there for you to add up for yourself? It would be different if there was a lack of transparency.
have differing amounts of gluten
That is certainly true, but the end product is very sensitive to the amount of gluten - someone baking bread is not going to use a high-gluten product meant for, say, pizza crust and vice versa.
The preservatives they use in bread products also differ.
She could very well have a sensitivity to some kind of additive or preservative. But according to the details of this story (which again is why I'm calling bullshit), she's decided it has something to do with either gluten or GMOs. And it is unlikely that US pasta (which often is a name brand imported from Italy) has the same preservatives as US bread. It's also very likely that Germans also eat Italian pasta, just like we do.
Either way, it has nothing to do with GMOs, since there isn't any GMO wheat on the market anywhere in the world. There are so many warnings of either a bullshit story or a crazy person here: self-diagnosed "gluten sensitivity", blaming GMOs when there aren't any GMOs present to blame, claims of things being OK in one geographic location but not in another, and not least of all posting as AC. Next let's just roll out stories of how our kids had their brains melted by non-existent mercury in vaccines.
You are right, because I missed all of his links to actual science as opposed to a story.
Found the guy who things an apocryphal story is "science".
what fucking government doesn't fudge the numbers at election time,
People are people, all over the world. There's nothing more evil or corrupt about a Chinese or Russian person.
With that said, some systems take this into account and some don't. If you can lie and get away with it, a lot more people will lie. Sure, some will still lie in societies where the data is open to inspection - but it's going to be a lot less prevalent. In the US you can say "Donald Trump is full of shit" and you can do so on national TV. You can show charts and info-graphics showing why he's full of shit. You won't convince everyone, but the data is at least out there. Pull that shit in China or Russia and your life is over. Worst case, prison - best case, you simply lose everything. As a result, the leaders can say whatever they want without repercussion. If they set a target of 7% growth, well then there is going to be 7% growth. If Trump wants 7% growth, he can claim it all he wants but the bureaucrats and economists won't toe the line.
GDP rant aside, the fact that they are cheating it is the news here - not how good or bad GDP is something reasonable to judge an economy by. If another measure was commonly used as a yardstick, they would likely cheat that instead.
Ideological arguments about taxation aside, that still is OK when calculating GDP... if you voluntarily gave money to the government and the government spent it, that would not pose a problem - the fact that the "spending" was involuntary doesn't really matter to the GDP calculation. Just make sure that you don't count the payment of taxes as spending so that it is double-counted.
First link - no one was disputing the effects of greenhouse gases. The disputes were all about measuring the man-made versus natural levels, and what proportion greenhouse gasses played in the overall climate budget.
Second link - he was an important scientist who helped eventually lead to our current understanding of the climate. His existence certainly does not prove that there was scientific consensus about AGW in the late 19th century. In fact, if you asked Tyndall himself about atmospheric CO2, he would have dismissed it as a minor component of the greenhouse effect compared to water vapor.
I think you are confusing scientific consensus in AGW with scientific consensus in the underlying theories and the basic science that drives the models. The models themselves weren't very good until the 80s, and could not separate man-made from natural warming convincingly until the 90s. They continue to improve, to the point where someone who was merely being skeptical in the 90s would have to be obstinate or a believer in conspiracy to continue in their skepticism.
What if the bias happens to NOT be a spurious correlation?
Then cascadingstylesheet's critique is valid.
white men really can't jump as well as black ones
Well, here's a good example... if you have a scientific reason to say this, then fine - it's a cold hard fact. But if you just happen to notice that blacks are overrepresented in athletics, that does not tell you whether blacks jump higher or whether blacks are raised in conditions which result in an emphasis on athletics. If you right an athlete-recruiting algorithm and it weights blacks for no particular reason other than this correlation... that is exactly the kind of thing you'd want to look into. You might even be justified in using the correlation as a stand-in, provided you can get your hands on self-identified racial data but not on whatever the real signal is. Just be careful how you use the results of your model.
So we police the poor areas more because there's more crime. Unfortunately those areas are more black because more black people are poor. Is that racist?
No, I don't think so - not in the way you describe it. That's just using the model to decide where to patrol. Just don't use it to screen individuals. Think of it like modeling an epidemic: it makes a lot of sense to use your computer model to decide where to deploy your resources, but you don't use the model to decide who to treat - for that you use established medical protocols. Obviously things like vaccines make this analogy imperfect, but hopefully you get my drift.
To be "fair", a model might operate on correlations - just a naive fit of the data. Some of these correlations might have a reasonable chance of reflecting cause and effect, and others might be a coincidence. In a perfect world, you'd suss out all of the bogus correlations - but if you are resource constrained, then going after the ones that are reinforcing systemic bias is a reasonable place to direct your efforts.
Point is: I grew up with "that science".
If you grew up with such certainty, then it was belief but not science. That it turned out to be right is besides the point.
I formerly used a second hard drive as my sole backup. Lightning hit nearby and took out both hard drives - luckily between the two hard drives I was able to recover most of the files.
A second incident took out both hard drives when a mount failed and the top drive fell on to the lower drive.
You can dismiss me as a moron, or you can use my hard-won experience - no skin off my back. The point is now I make sure I have a backup at a separate geographic location, and now I understand why that is considered best practice.
backblaze b2 and wasabi.com
They really are different products, but this price is now inline with wasabi.com and better than B2.
This is objectively not true.
More likely a "former hippy".
The ascent of Stan
Textbook hippie man
Get rest while you can
Yes, and there's the Aswan dam. Note that the story is about Australia, though.