They didn't do a random test, say "oh hey look coffee did something lets make wild conclusions". They worked from mice studies, the most recent in 2006, then specifically did a human test by taking people with minor cognitive impairment (which often progresses into Alzheimer's), they tested them for their blood caffeine levels, and looked for further cognitive decline. What they found was that in mice with Alzheimer's, coffee prevented further mental decline. And, in those mice, there was a specific and identifiable immune response connected with this effect. What they also found was that decaff coffee produced neither the protective effect, nor the correlated immune response. And caffeine alone or from other sources did not have this effect, either. This new 4 year study took patients and looked at their blood caffeine levels, and found that those who drink a lot of coffee had the SAME identifiable immune response as the mice did, and that this immune response is also strongly correlated with protecting from further mental decline in humans.
So, if you weren't paying attention, this isn't a correlation study, that isn't "conclusion section speculation". There's an identifiable response, they know this identifiable response doesn't occur with decaff, or with non-coffee caffeine sources, so they conclude it is some combination of caffeine with some unknown agent in coffee. But the actual response is identified. The correlation is not between coffee and Alzheimer's per se, but between Alzheimer's and this specific immune response that is almost certainly triggered by coffee, because although it's hard to do a controlled experiment with people, it's not hard to do with mice! And they did. Six years ago.
At any rate, what they don't know is what other chemical is causing this, how this response is protecting against cognitive decline, and if having smaller amounts of coffee will have a lesser effect, or be just plain ineffective. (Some people have quoted 3 cups of coffee per day, but TFA says 3 cups of coffee shortly before being tested, which would indicate a lot more than 3 cups per day total)
They drew a post hoc line. The line is DESIGNED so that nobody above it got Alzheimer's. So it's interesting that its possible to draw such a line, but the "100%" part isn't interesting at all. To talk about significance we have to know how many people total were above the line. According to TFA, 15% of people with MCI go on to develop Alzheimer's. If only 20 out of those 124 people were above the line, the expected number result is that 3 of the heavy drinkers would get Alzheimers, so 0 isn't as strong a correlation as you think. But maybe 60 of the 124 were heavy drinkers, in which case it is a pretty strong correlation.
You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.
Not if you build a GUI using Visual Basic and backtrace the signal.
The RIAA/MPAA's massive political contributions are very bipartisan. One of the few things the Democrats and Republicans can truly agree on is that everybody should be giving more money and laws to the ??AA, at least as long as the ??AA continue to return the favour.
This is what Einstein had to say about those who call him religious:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
And in particular about the rumor that a Jesuit priest had debated with Einstein and converted him from Atheism (also wrong as Einstein greatly disliked being called Atheist as well).
I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it. And that is all.
And this is what he has to say about the word God itself
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text
And, to round it out
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.
His beliefs had God not as willful force beyond the universe, but as the universe itself. He sees the laws of physics not as something that God has created, but something that God is, something beyond us that we can but hope to catch a glimpse of. Something without an anthropomorphic will or mind, something that does not care for us at all. (He viewed this as important as we therefore must care for each other instead of relying on God and ignoring each other) I think you will find that while many leading scientists may, as Einstein, reject organized religion, most of them will nevertheless regard the Universe with reverence, many (including Einstein) referring to such reverence in spiritual terms. Essentially, a small and petty God preoccupied with murdering those who use their free will wrong by eating the wrong kinds of food, wearing the wrong kinds of clothes, planting crops in the wrong way, was and is inconsistent with those scientists views of the absolute majesty of creation.
At any rate, Einstein was perhaps even more displeased at those who would call him an Athiest as part of their OWN Argument from Authority. What he had to say about (loud) atheism was
The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres
He repeated such sentiment many times. Though he dislikes the Dogma of religion he does not wish to challenge believers lest he replace a (perhaps childish) belief with emptiness, saying "such a belief seems to me preferable to th
Classic false equivalence, "all statements must be equal, so if one is a lie, all other statements are lies of the exact same magnitude". "The sky is red" "The sky is blue". The principles of democracy and fairness indicate that the sky must therefore be purple!
It should be about 10W, and that's because you have it in Connect24 standby (orange light). Turn off Connect24 (which keeps USB and Wifi powered and connected to Nintendo's servers so you can get Nintendo messages, data updates for the weather channel and other apps like that, and messages from friends). Consumer reports found it uses ~10W in this mode, which is more than the 2-3W that other consoles use when "off". But if you disable it (can tell you did it right because the light goes red instead of orange when it turns off) it drops to 1.3W. On the other hand, the Wii uses 15-18W when on and playing games, compared to the 155-200W drawn by a PS3 or a 360.
So the Linux kernel isn't compatible with the GPL, because although technically released under the GPL, I can't get my changes upstream without going through the group in charge of it? OK.
At any rate, the question according to not-tfa (which confuses GPL with public domain), the question wasn't the ambiguous "is java free?" but "anyone can use the JPL (java programming language) without paying royalties, yes?" which he had previously answered "Correct" in the deposition, and on the stand he tried to be evasive.
The problem is that Oracle is saying that although the code is GPL, the API is proprietary, so by writing code while referencing the API Google has violated copyright and needs a license for all of their code. (They also have mostly-invalidated patent claims, to be settled later). Suing over patents and suing over the API mean its a very legit question to ask if ANYBODY can use Java without being sued by Oracle, and Oracle WILL NOT SAY.
You already can't take what you are told in confidence and use it for financial gain. Doing so (in almost all states) can get you up to 10 years in prison, and/or a $5 million fine. The purpose of an NDA isn't to take your right away (you never had it) but to make sure the "was aware it was told in confidence" bit of the whole "trade secret" law is air tight. In the same way, verbal contracts are legally binding but hard to prove in court! Saying that "the only purpose of an NDA is to sue me falsely later" as others have said in these threads is no different than saying that "the only purpose of ANY CONTRACT is to sue me falsely" and so flat our refuse to ever sign anything ever, insisting that "my word is my bond!" Sure would be nice if that was true in general.
That wouldn't work, because then ban people who spam like that. Like they did here, because SHE WAS THE ONE DOING IT TOO. Here's a sample
"As you all know I have a rockin' tight ass, a successful project on Kickstarter that you've all funded, and a cyberstalker that goes by the name of FrankSinatraDirtyTalker1915@comcast.net.
I originally met "Frank" back in College, where we dated for a bit. I should point out that he's not an old man, as his username might imply, but rather someone who is simply obsessed with Frank Sinatra and my gorgeous rockin hard ass.
Anyway, when I broke up with him he took it pretty badly. It was our Sophomore year at Rice University and I had just discovered gravity bongs and going down on another girl while blazed out of my gord. As I've admitted, these were confusing albeit fun times for me.
Meanwhile, "Frank" was raised as a Mormon but had recently converted to Scientology. I guess you might say he was experimenting with his own hallucinogenic homoerotic drug. This drug/sex/cult cocktail, combined with my round pulchritudinous derriere, and the sudden shock of losing his ability to play his daily role of dressing up as Dr. Parnassus while gently fondling my perky nipples and supple breasts that he had affectionately named the Merry Mammary Sisters of Nippopolis, and Queens of the Breastiary - led to Frank's complete mental breakdown.
I don't blame Frank for my rockin body, just as I don't blame you for being attracted to my intelligence and funding my project on Kickstarter. However, what I do not like is being stalked. I hope you all do what I do when you see Frank's messages on any thread related to my project. Just lick your index finger, point it at Frank's username and then say, "Ooooooooooooo ICE COLD! Mama thinks you're a BAAAAD BOYYYY! OOOOOO Ice Cold..." then point the same finger back at your left nipple and make a sizzling sound "SSSSSssssssssssss" and sing this little rap
Thank you all again for funding my project on Kickstarter. You're clearly invested in a winner!"
They don't want her having her lovers' spat in their comment sections, assuming the other account isn't just her, trying to drum up attention by faking a stalker and then breaking enough Kickstarter rules by "fighting back" that she can get banned and then run to Reditt and Slashdot within seconds.
How "very random" do you need, that a Mersenne Twister is not good enough, but an untested signal is? And if you only looked at the 1 bit word mean, you basically didn't test it at all. If you don't care about specifics, you can just use the Testu01 suite of tests. If you care about specifics and want to do your own tests...you should do the same bias test for various word lengths. So besides making sure the 0 and 1 appear about 50% of the time, you should make sure that 00,01,10,11 appear about 25% of the time, 000,001,etc are all uniform for 3 bit words, and so on until at least several hundred bit words (yes, it will take you a long time to sample enough words!) Besides those simple "fair dice" tests, you can also pick a dimension, (2 or more) and sample a lot of points (using whatever bit words you like) and then find the minimum distance between two points. With repeated tests this minumum distance should follow an exponential distribution, with the parameters describing that distribution depending on the range of possible values and the number of dimensions. Similarly, if you treat your n bit words as floats from [0,1) (by dividing by 2^n), then sampling a large number and adding them together should get you a normal variable, where the mu and sigma depend on n and how many you are adding together. There's also a 'pigeon hole' test where you have 2^n bins and sample n bit words and put them in the bin, and then take the maximum occupancy. Again, statistically this value should have a known distribution and you can test against that. A related one is called a "parking lot" test, where you sample in 2 dimensions and treat points as circles of some radius, and you only place a circle if it doesn't overlap with other circles already placed. After 10,000 samples you should have less than 10,000 placed, and the number you actually placed should be normally distributed, with the mu and sigma depending on the size of the lot, the number of attempts, and the radius of the circles used. There are plenty of such tests. They all revolve around using your generator to simulate a simple statistical system where the distribution of the result is known by you, so you can see how consistent your repeated simulations are with the expected distribution. A 1-bit mean test is just simulating coin tosses, while a 2-bit mean test is simulating 4 sided die tosses, etc.
But a Mersenne Twister does quite well on Testu01, so you have to ask yourself why a software generator can't possibly be sufficient.
As for the mechanical "what's wrong" side of things, if you don't know the physical mechanism, you can't know what conditions are required for your tests to remain valid. Where is the line noise coming from? Just noise from the physical components, or is there a radio wave factor? Will a new tower broadcasting alter the behavior of the noise in a meaningful way? What about wifi devices? I know of sound cards that pick up the signal sent when a cellphone rings so you can tell moments before it actually rings. (You can get a TARDIS for your keychain that lights up when a nearby cellphone is being rung, which works by the same mechanism but on purpose).
Nope, it's a lot worse to have a patent on a device you make, and sue competitors who do not violate the patent in hopes of putting them out of business with legal fees. Patent trolls may have possibly invalid claims and may be extorting, but Honeywell knows it is filing groundless lawsuits in hopes of crushing competition without having to innovate or compete. Patent trolls just want some money, not to destroy you and bury your corpse.
TFA says that out of 32,000 games that the original FreeCell can deal (it can't deal all 52! hands), all have been one by humans except ONE, and exhaustive testing shows that that last game has been exhaustively shown with 100% certainty to be unsolvable. Out of 100 million games with a less constrained dealer, only 1282 have not been solved by a human or machine. So using one of these unconstrained versions of FreeCell, you can probably assume that the odds of getting an unwinnable game are something like 0.00001%, so essentially you can always win a random game.
Actually you don't need to assume the same numbering scheme, as the citation for "believed unsolvable" actually says it's been exhaustively tested by machine and proved unsolvable.
You do not know, and can not control, what the value will be. You do not know if the other person has measured their particle's state or not. Measuring the state destroys the entanglement. All you know after is that the result you got will be correlated with what they get, or got..
You forget that quantum shit be weird. If you think of particles as particles and their state as a 0/1 variable, then that's totally true. But particles do crazy things. One of the things they do is act like waves if nobody is looking. Entangled particles have to behave like the same sort of thing. In particular, if one of them enters a two slit setup and self interferes, the entangled pair has to also act like a wave and self interfere. This apparently occurs regardless of distance. What this means is that if Alice and Bob have a shared set of atoms. If Alice shoots an atom at a pair of slits, then Bob's atom will self interfere even if shot at an unshielded detector. Now that's not useful for sending messages, because statistically Bob can't tell if it hit where it hit because it's a particle, or because it's a wave. And the quantum equations say the same thing, that statistically the two states cannot be distinguished from random noise. However, the equations do not apply to larger systems, and we don't currently have ones that do.
Now, people assume there must be some quantum effect to prevent this from being used, because superluminal signals are mutually exclusive with causality, and most people assume causality holds. But there's no strong evidence either way at the moment.
Don't know if the "collusion" bit is true, but Shyster and Shyster books are all $19.95 on Amazon and Kobo, even while the paper version of the same book is going for $6. They used to be less than the paperback, which is why it made economic sense to buy an ereader, since you'd eventually make the money back in book savings. Now you're paying treble for a book you cannot lend, resell, or give away.
The same argument says that you are being "exploited" when you go to Walmart and they charge you even one cent more than they paid for the product. If you are paying a worker $100 per unit to make something that you turn around and sell for $100 you are a fucking moron, you could make more money scrounging for bottles in the gutter. The worker is better off though, I guess I'll give you that...
First they let anybody return anything and don't even look in the box before re-shrinkwrapping it and putting it back on the shelf as new, then blame YOU when you get a box full of bricks, and people complained! Now they scan your ID and only let you return one thing every 3 months and that's ALSO wrong? People are so mercurial!
The same pesticide IS in every food you eat. Not because of HFCS, which doesn't contain that much (except if you're an insect), but because they spray the same pesticide on everything. There is 50-1000 PPB in your fresh greens, 10-40 PPB in your mashed potatoes, 0.0004 in your tap water (averaged over the USA, as high as 0.01 BBP in farm lands, and 0.1 from well water in farm land). When you buy organic, the levels are still only lower, not gone. It persists in the ground for years upon years. But don't worry, they've tested the LD50 so they know how much it takes to kill a person instantly, and presumably anything not instantly fatal is harmless. Sure, it causes birth defects in rats, but rats aren't people.
The poison in question is what is called "systemic". The husk doesn't matter, the poison leeches into every part of the plant. The roots are poisoned, the leaves are poisoned, the stems are poisoned, the husks are poisoned, the fruits are poisoned, the entire plant is poisoned. But since the levels are well below the lethal dose for humans, it is safe to eat! But it is classified as "moderately toxic" so foods must be tested to ensure that they are not toxic. The FDA randomly does this, and finds them in lots of foods, though they've never found widespread cases where they are considered "dangerous" to humans, though no chronic exposure tests have been done. At any rate, Bayer says that 20 BBP is "safe" for bees, and most HFCS tested is around that level. What TFA shows is that although 20 BBP is well below the LD50 for individual bees, it still is high enough to result in CCD 15 times out of 16, within 6 months of exposure. So, to repeat myself, they didn't test HFCS because the government does. How dare they trust the government? I don't know, but for whatever reason they don't suspect that the government is reporting greatly higher levels of poison in the food supply than are actually present.
So you think the interesting part is that insecticide kills insects, and the fact that HFCS contains various insecticides in significant amounts is both obvious and beside the point?
It's about an endian mixup so that instead of being frozen for 0000 0000 0000 0001 years, you were frozen for 0001 0000 0000 0000 years. That is,16^12, which is also 0x10^0xc.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't do a random test, say "oh hey look coffee did something lets make wild conclusions". They worked from mice studies, the most recent in 2006, then specifically did a human test by taking people with minor cognitive impairment (which often progresses into Alzheimer's), they tested them for their blood caffeine levels, and looked for further cognitive decline. What they found was that in mice with Alzheimer's, coffee prevented further mental decline. And, in those mice, there was a specific and identifiable immune response connected with this effect. What they also found was that decaff coffee produced neither the protective effect, nor the correlated immune response. And caffeine alone or from other sources did not have this effect, either. This new 4 year study took patients and looked at their blood caffeine levels, and found that those who drink a lot of coffee had the SAME identifiable immune response as the mice did, and that this immune response is also strongly correlated with protecting from further mental decline in humans.
So, if you weren't paying attention, this isn't a correlation study, that isn't "conclusion section speculation". There's an identifiable response, they know this identifiable response doesn't occur with decaff, or with non-coffee caffeine sources, so they conclude it is some combination of caffeine with some unknown agent in coffee. But the actual response is identified. The correlation is not between coffee and Alzheimer's per se, but between Alzheimer's and this specific immune response that is almost certainly triggered by coffee, because although it's hard to do a controlled experiment with people, it's not hard to do with mice! And they did. Six years ago.
At any rate, what they don't know is what other chemical is causing this, how this response is protecting against cognitive decline, and if having smaller amounts of coffee will have a lesser effect, or be just plain ineffective. (Some people have quoted 3 cups of coffee per day, but TFA says 3 cups of coffee shortly before being tested, which would indicate a lot more than 3 cups per day total)
They drew a post hoc line. The line is DESIGNED so that nobody above it got Alzheimer's. So it's interesting that its possible to draw such a line, but the "100%" part isn't interesting at all. To talk about significance we have to know how many people total were above the line. According to TFA, 15% of people with MCI go on to develop Alzheimer's. If only 20 out of those 124 people were above the line, the expected number result is that 3 of the heavy drinkers would get Alzheimers, so 0 isn't as strong a correlation as you think. But maybe 60 of the 124 were heavy drinkers, in which case it is a pretty strong correlation.
Don't worry, this only applies to movie theaters and restaurants. Kwik Trip is neither so it would still be able to sell whatever it likes.
Not if you build a GUI using Visual Basic and backtrace the signal.
I think that scenario is in the EULA already, we should be covered.
The RIAA/MPAA's massive political contributions are very bipartisan. One of the few things the Democrats and Republicans can truly agree on is that everybody should be giving more money and laws to the ??AA, at least as long as the ??AA continue to return the favour.
This is what Einstein had to say about those who call him religious:
And in particular about the rumor that a Jesuit priest had debated with Einstein and converted him from Atheism (also wrong as Einstein greatly disliked being called Atheist as well).
And this is what he has to say about the word God itself
And, to round it out
His beliefs had God not as willful force beyond the universe, but as the universe itself. He sees the laws of physics not as something that God has created, but something that God is, something beyond us that we can but hope to catch a glimpse of. Something without an anthropomorphic will or mind, something that does not care for us at all. (He viewed this as important as we therefore must care for each other instead of relying on God and ignoring each other) I think you will find that while many leading scientists may, as Einstein, reject organized religion, most of them will nevertheless regard the Universe with reverence, many (including Einstein) referring to such reverence in spiritual terms. Essentially, a small and petty God preoccupied with murdering those who use their free will wrong by eating the wrong kinds of food, wearing the wrong kinds of clothes, planting crops in the wrong way, was and is inconsistent with those scientists views of the absolute majesty of creation.
At any rate, Einstein was perhaps even more displeased at those who would call him an Athiest as part of their OWN Argument from Authority. What he had to say about (loud) atheism was
He repeated such sentiment many times. Though he dislikes the Dogma of religion he does not wish to challenge believers lest he replace a (perhaps childish) belief with emptiness, saying "such a belief seems to me preferable to th
Seems like they had a $1 billion business model! ;)
Classic false equivalence, "all statements must be equal, so if one is a lie, all other statements are lies of the exact same magnitude". "The sky is red" "The sky is blue". The principles of democracy and fairness indicate that the sky must therefore be purple!
It should be about 10W, and that's because you have it in Connect24 standby (orange light). Turn off Connect24 (which keeps USB and Wifi powered and connected to Nintendo's servers so you can get Nintendo messages, data updates for the weather channel and other apps like that, and messages from friends). Consumer reports found it uses ~10W in this mode, which is more than the 2-3W that other consoles use when "off". But if you disable it (can tell you did it right because the light goes red instead of orange when it turns off) it drops to 1.3W. On the other hand, the Wii uses 15-18W when on and playing games, compared to the 155-200W drawn by a PS3 or a 360.
At any rate, the question according to not-tfa (which confuses GPL with public domain), the question wasn't the ambiguous "is java free?" but "anyone can use the JPL (java programming language) without paying royalties, yes?" which he had previously answered "Correct" in the deposition, and on the stand he tried to be evasive.
The problem is that Oracle is saying that although the code is GPL, the API is proprietary, so by writing code while referencing the API Google has violated copyright and needs a license for all of their code. (They also have mostly-invalidated patent claims, to be settled later). Suing over patents and suing over the API mean its a very legit question to ask if ANYBODY can use Java without being sued by Oracle, and Oracle WILL NOT SAY.
You already can't take what you are told in confidence and use it for financial gain. Doing so (in almost all states) can get you up to 10 years in prison, and/or a $5 million fine. The purpose of an NDA isn't to take your right away (you never had it) but to make sure the "was aware it was told in confidence" bit of the whole "trade secret" law is air tight. In the same way, verbal contracts are legally binding but hard to prove in court! Saying that "the only purpose of an NDA is to sue me falsely later" as others have said in these threads is no different than saying that "the only purpose of ANY CONTRACT is to sue me falsely" and so flat our refuse to ever sign anything ever, insisting that "my word is my bond!" Sure would be nice if that was true in general.
They don't want her having her lovers' spat in their comment sections, assuming the other account isn't just her, trying to drum up attention by faking a stalker and then breaking enough Kickstarter rules by "fighting back" that she can get banned and then run to Reditt and Slashdot within seconds.
How "very random" do you need, that a Mersenne Twister is not good enough, but an untested signal is? And if you only looked at the 1 bit word mean, you basically didn't test it at all. If you don't care about specifics, you can just use the Testu01 suite of tests. If you care about specifics and want to do your own tests...you should do the same bias test for various word lengths. So besides making sure the 0 and 1 appear about 50% of the time, you should make sure that 00,01,10,11 appear about 25% of the time, 000,001,etc are all uniform for 3 bit words, and so on until at least several hundred bit words (yes, it will take you a long time to sample enough words!) Besides those simple "fair dice" tests, you can also pick a dimension, (2 or more) and sample a lot of points (using whatever bit words you like) and then find the minimum distance between two points. With repeated tests this minumum distance should follow an exponential distribution, with the parameters describing that distribution depending on the range of possible values and the number of dimensions. Similarly, if you treat your n bit words as floats from [0,1) (by dividing by 2^n), then sampling a large number and adding them together should get you a normal variable, where the mu and sigma depend on n and how many you are adding together. There's also a 'pigeon hole' test where you have 2^n bins and sample n bit words and put them in the bin, and then take the maximum occupancy. Again, statistically this value should have a known distribution and you can test against that. A related one is called a "parking lot" test, where you sample in 2 dimensions and treat points as circles of some radius, and you only place a circle if it doesn't overlap with other circles already placed. After 10,000 samples you should have less than 10,000 placed, and the number you actually placed should be normally distributed, with the mu and sigma depending on the size of the lot, the number of attempts, and the radius of the circles used. There are plenty of such tests. They all revolve around using your generator to simulate a simple statistical system where the distribution of the result is known by you, so you can see how consistent your repeated simulations are with the expected distribution. A 1-bit mean test is just simulating coin tosses, while a 2-bit mean test is simulating 4 sided die tosses, etc.
But a Mersenne Twister does quite well on Testu01, so you have to ask yourself why a software generator can't possibly be sufficient.
As for the mechanical "what's wrong" side of things, if you don't know the physical mechanism, you can't know what conditions are required for your tests to remain valid. Where is the line noise coming from? Just noise from the physical components, or is there a radio wave factor? Will a new tower broadcasting alter the behavior of the noise in a meaningful way? What about wifi devices? I know of sound cards that pick up the signal sent when a cellphone rings so you can tell moments before it actually rings. (You can get a TARDIS for your keychain that lights up when a nearby cellphone is being rung, which works by the same mechanism but on purpose).
Nope, it's a lot worse to have a patent on a device you make, and sue competitors who do not violate the patent in hopes of putting them out of business with legal fees. Patent trolls may have possibly invalid claims and may be extorting, but Honeywell knows it is filing groundless lawsuits in hopes of crushing competition without having to innovate or compete. Patent trolls just want some money, not to destroy you and bury your corpse.
TFA says that out of 32,000 games that the original FreeCell can deal (it can't deal all 52! hands), all have been one by humans except ONE, and exhaustive testing shows that that last game has been exhaustively shown with 100% certainty to be unsolvable. Out of 100 million games with a less constrained dealer, only 1282 have not been solved by a human or machine. So using one of these unconstrained versions of FreeCell, you can probably assume that the odds of getting an unwinnable game are something like 0.00001%, so essentially you can always win a random game.
Actually you don't need to assume the same numbering scheme, as the citation for "believed unsolvable" actually says it's been exhaustively tested by machine and proved unsolvable.
You forget that quantum shit be weird. If you think of particles as particles and their state as a 0/1 variable, then that's totally true. But particles do crazy things. One of the things they do is act like waves if nobody is looking. Entangled particles have to behave like the same sort of thing. In particular, if one of them enters a two slit setup and self interferes, the entangled pair has to also act like a wave and self interfere. This apparently occurs regardless of distance. What this means is that if Alice and Bob have a shared set of atoms. If Alice shoots an atom at a pair of slits, then Bob's atom will self interfere even if shot at an unshielded detector. Now that's not useful for sending messages, because statistically Bob can't tell if it hit where it hit because it's a particle, or because it's a wave. And the quantum equations say the same thing, that statistically the two states cannot be distinguished from random noise. However, the equations do not apply to larger systems, and we don't currently have ones that do.
Now, people assume there must be some quantum effect to prevent this from being used, because superluminal signals are mutually exclusive with causality, and most people assume causality holds. But there's no strong evidence either way at the moment.
Don't know if the "collusion" bit is true, but Shyster and Shyster books are all $19.95 on Amazon and Kobo, even while the paper version of the same book is going for $6. They used to be less than the paperback, which is why it made economic sense to buy an ereader, since you'd eventually make the money back in book savings. Now you're paying treble for a book you cannot lend, resell, or give away.
The same argument says that you are being "exploited" when you go to Walmart and they charge you even one cent more than they paid for the product. If you are paying a worker $100 per unit to make something that you turn around and sell for $100 you are a fucking moron, you could make more money scrounging for bottles in the gutter. The worker is better off though, I guess I'll give you that...
First they let anybody return anything and don't even look in the box before re-shrinkwrapping it and putting it back on the shelf as new, then blame YOU when you get a box full of bricks, and people complained! Now they scan your ID and only let you return one thing every 3 months and that's ALSO wrong? People are so mercurial!
The same pesticide IS in every food you eat. Not because of HFCS, which doesn't contain that much (except if you're an insect), but because they spray the same pesticide on everything. There is 50-1000 PPB in your fresh greens, 10-40 PPB in your mashed potatoes, 0.0004 in your tap water (averaged over the USA, as high as 0.01 BBP in farm lands, and 0.1 from well water in farm land). When you buy organic, the levels are still only lower, not gone. It persists in the ground for years upon years. But don't worry, they've tested the LD50 so they know how much it takes to kill a person instantly, and presumably anything not instantly fatal is harmless. Sure, it causes birth defects in rats, but rats aren't people.
The poison in question is what is called "systemic". The husk doesn't matter, the poison leeches into every part of the plant. The roots are poisoned, the leaves are poisoned, the stems are poisoned, the husks are poisoned, the fruits are poisoned, the entire plant is poisoned. But since the levels are well below the lethal dose for humans, it is safe to eat! But it is classified as "moderately toxic" so foods must be tested to ensure that they are not toxic. The FDA randomly does this, and finds them in lots of foods, though they've never found widespread cases where they are considered "dangerous" to humans, though no chronic exposure tests have been done. At any rate, Bayer says that 20 BBP is "safe" for bees, and most HFCS tested is around that level. What TFA shows is that although 20 BBP is well below the LD50 for individual bees, it still is high enough to result in CCD 15 times out of 16, within 6 months of exposure. So, to repeat myself, they didn't test HFCS because the government does. How dare they trust the government? I don't know, but for whatever reason they don't suspect that the government is reporting greatly higher levels of poison in the food supply than are actually present.
So you think the interesting part is that insecticide kills insects, and the fact that HFCS contains various insecticides in significant amounts is both obvious and beside the point?
It's about an endian mixup so that instead of being frozen for 0000 0000 0000 0001 years, you were frozen for 0001 0000 0000 0000 years. That is,16^12, which is also 0x10^0xc.