Odd, because I tend to feel as if I understand it and don't understand it at the same time. It's only when somebody asks me if I understand it that I come to a conclusion, either way.
Me too, but then I get tangled up and with mixed emotions over the recent death of my cat and wish I never tried to understand in the first place.
All sorts of margin calls can be triggered by these rapid plunges, which could force the liquidation of someone's entire portfolio as brokers enforce their margin call procedures.
Further there are the common tactic of the large players to engineer a price drop in a given issue simply to free up a bunch of stock held under Stop Loss orders.
To get statistical significance, you don't need to sample the entire population. Beyond a certain number for a certain confidence level, you don't get very much more.
Exactly right.
There was no statistical significance, which means that the cancers (or absence there of) were distributed over cell phone users and non-users (controls) with no preference for either group.
Normally this would be the end of it.
But by the way the reporter worded it (Inconclusive) and (to a lesser extent) the way the Researcher phrased it, indicates a clear predilection toward finding a positive correlation, which they could not do.
The takeaway is not that the study "inconclusive". The scientific takeaway is that there is yet again no evidence of correlation between cancer and cell usage.
Its over. The absence of evidence destroys this theory. Time to move on.
I ran reiser on 108 production servers for years and never lost a byte of data due to the FS. It was robust as hell.
We had two instances where power surges did take down a server all we needed to do was mount the drive in another machine and run reiserfsck. The resize capability was a godsend.
I suggest your problem was somewhere other than Reiserfs.
This sounds like a recipe for turning the humans into maintenance and support staff for the robots.
It seems to me that every time man has developed such devices 4 or 5 times as many people who used to do the work are now employed supporting the device that does the actual work.
A human needs food and shelter and science tools. A team of robot + humans needs all that plus a maintenance shop, additional technicians, spare parts, operations specialists to manage the robots when on-missions.
A dumb transport might require some of these, but a "smart" transport will require more.
We just barely are able to get a car to run a course with no on board humans, but the staff behind this project vastly exceeds the cost of hiring a driver. And the car still can't go half the places a driven car could.
In short, this is a human resource sponge. It would be easier and less costly and require fewer humans to do this sort of science with humans than doing it with semi autonomous robots.
And unlike flying Predator drones on the other side of the planet from an air conditioned office in Nevada, signal delay would require on-mars remote operations staff for anything more sophisticated than the Spirit and Opportunity rovers.
Oh, and Send my only transportation off on some scouting mission while I take core samples in some remote ravine far from my base? I don't think so.
Because you can't see it doesn't make it impossible or unlikely.
Look, the weight of fuel needed to get the shuttle up to the altitude where the white knight drops spaceship one exceeds the weight for the rest of the trip to orbit.
The rockets are expended and jettisoned, and the external tank is half empty.
For you to state that it fundamentally won't cut it with no credentials, no studies, no NOTHING, that, my friend, is what won't cut it.
Payload in orbit with cross range re-entry capability allows for retrieval of payload. Or DELIVERY of payload.
With a fleet of these, a few would always be within range is to almost any land mass on earth, on less than an hour's notice.
After all, if you can put the wheels on the hash marks at the end of any runway, you could also but the entire vehicle through any given window of any given building.
I doubt this has anything at all to do with NASA, and NASA is in no position to reclaim anything from military projects.
This system is built on designs for flight test prototypes developed when the shuttle was being designed, and refined thereafter.
TFA says: "The official description of the mission talks of demonstrating "a rapid-turnaround airborne test bed." That makes sense, but there is no sign that anyone plans to fly the vehicle ever again" which is pure utter nonsense. You don't build a lander to fly once.
The article also suggests it will attempt never before attempted things such as automated approach and landing. Stuff the Russians demonstrated with SnowStorm. along with the automated rendezvous which Russian cargo launches have been doing for years.
This is the Air Forces access to payload deployment and return. There is no point in making it landable if all you need is delivery with no return.
This is the prototype of Predator Drone of space, and/or instantly deployable Command and Control platforms, with plausible dependability.
Ex-craniate folks, the Air Force does not intend to allow sat-killers go un-challenged when so much of US military operations rely on space based coms and control.
The tendency to charge for wifi at certain hotel chains is usually offset by their rewards program, where if you become a member (free), you get wifi for free. Not always.
Some chains provide free wifi in all hotels as a matter of course.
Some hotels used to block many ports. I stayed somewhere a couple years ago that blocked all mail ports so you couldn't send even when you were connecting thru a secure connection to your own mail server back at the office. Unbelievable. I found it necessary to have a backup Gmail account for that nonsense.
I absolutely will not stay at any place that does not have wifi. And I'm becoming less willing to pay for it. Like the TV in the room, its an expected standard amenity. I even carry my own router with me, as I often have more than one device to connect.
Yes the bandwidth is usually saturated in the evening porn hours but most of my work gets done in the morning.
Objections for marine deployment of this type of farm are mostly navigational (ships mostly skirt this area beyond nantucket Island but smaller craft and fishing vessels could see collisions), radar interference, and a whole bunch of people that want to push even visual impacts onto someone else. (Bird strikes are for the most part gross exaggerations, long since debunked.)
Driving in the west, I find the wind farms something majestic. I suppose I would not want one directly over my house, which is why the off shore solution is perfect for the eastern seaboard. These things are quiet, and have a proven track record of reliability. Standing up to the salt air may be an issue.
The Indian tribes build casinos on their own ancestral sacred grounds but somehow object to wind farms out on the water. This was never a sea-going tribe. But a few perks from Uncle Ted and sure enough a spirit dreamed up just last night will be annoyed.
Its odd that Kennedy's objections were enough to hold this project off under republican administrations, but as soon as he is dead, even the Democrats decide its good to go.
Having just swapped my iPhone 3Gs for a Nexus One, I can tell you I'm never going back. I now have an expensive ipod Touch (iPhone without a sim) sitting on my desk.
I have no idea what I'll ever use it for, since the Nexus does everything better. I'm not much of a gamer, so YMMV.
I was advised by the AT&T rep to wipe it and sell it on Ebay. She says there is a big market for them as people jailbreak them and unlock them and sell them overseas. She was drooling over the Nexus while changing my account to free me from Visual Voice Mail. Google Voice works better for voice mail.
John Gruber, who writes the Daring Fireball blog, said it was common knowledge among insiders that the iPhone was stolen from Apple, then purchased by Gizmodo.
So Giz bought arguably STOLEN merchandise? Then destroyed it?
Go back and re-read the gismodo review. They said everything fit very tightly with no wasted space. You wouldn't do that if it were merely a prototypeing container.
And no, it has not been "pretty much acknowledged". Not in the article, and certainly not by Apple.
I'd still like to know what they were thinking when the put that fraudulent FCC id on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd, because I tend to feel as if I understand it and don't understand it at the same time.
It's only when somebody asks me if I understand it that I come to a conclusion, either way.
Me too, but then I get tangled up and with mixed emotions over the recent death of my cat and wish I never tried to understand in the first place.
Google should sue the Grandmother. Its against the law in Germany to run an unsecured access point.
I'd plead entrapment.
All sorts of margin calls can be triggered by these rapid plunges, which could force the liquidation of someone's entire portfolio as brokers enforce their margin call procedures.
Further there are the common tactic of the large players to engineer a price drop in a given issue simply to free up a bunch of stock held under Stop Loss orders.
Its easily abused.
The results do not necessarily contradict themselves.
And their statements that the results were unreliable were simply their way of stating they found no statistical significance.
All of this points to some other source for brain cancers, something totally unrelated to cell phone radiation.
There is no correlation with cell phone use.
Continuing to look at cell use in the face of failed findings in study after study is driven by those who have some sort of axe to grind.
You are just as likely to find correlation with the type pillow they use in bed or the amount of fish they eat.
To get statistical significance, you don't need to sample the entire population. Beyond a certain number for a certain confidence level, you don't get very much more.
Exactly right.
There was no statistical significance, which means that the cancers (or absence there of) were distributed over cell phone users and non-users (controls) with no preference for either group.
Normally this would be the end of it.
But by the way the reporter worded it (Inconclusive) and (to a lesser extent) the way the Researcher phrased it, indicates a clear predilection toward finding a positive correlation, which they could not do.
The takeaway is not that the study "inconclusive". The scientific takeaway is that there is yet again no evidence of correlation between cancer and cell usage.
Its over. The absence of evidence destroys this theory. Time to move on.
Two is your sample size?
I ran reiser on 108 production servers for years and never lost a byte of data due to the FS. It was robust as hell.
We had two instances where power surges did take down a server all we needed to do was mount the drive in another machine and run reiserfsck. The resize capability was a godsend.
I suggest your problem was somewhere other than Reiserfs.
Best current estimates are 10,000 times the speed of light as the MINIMUM speed of quantum entanglement.
As Einstein called it: spooky.
But eventually, robots will be autonomous and able to service themselves.
It's a progression of advances, and you have to start someplace.
True, but Mars is not that place. (Hence the title of this sub-thread).
Or, maybe just perfect quantum entanglement com systems and drive those robots from Nevada in real time... ;-)
This sounds like a recipe for turning the humans into maintenance and support staff for the robots.
It seems to me that every time man has developed such devices 4 or 5 times as many people who used to do the work are now employed supporting the device that does the actual work.
A human needs food and shelter and science tools. A team of robot + humans needs all that plus a maintenance shop, additional technicians, spare parts, operations specialists to manage the robots when on-missions.
A dumb transport might require some of these, but a "smart" transport will require more.
We just barely are able to get a car to run a course with no on board humans, but the staff behind this project vastly exceeds the cost of hiring a driver. And the car still can't go half the places a driven car could.
In short, this is a human resource sponge. It would be easier and less costly and require fewer humans to do this sort of science with humans than doing it with semi autonomous robots.
And unlike flying Predator drones on the other side of the planet from an air conditioned office in Nevada, signal delay would require on-mars remote operations staff for anything more sophisticated than the Spirit and Opportunity rovers.
Oh, and Send my only transportation off on some scouting mission while I take core samples in some remote ravine far from my base? I don't think so.
Besides AMEE Freaks me Out.
Because you can't see it doesn't make it impossible or unlikely.
Look, the weight of fuel needed to get the shuttle up to the altitude where the white knight drops spaceship one exceeds the weight for the rest of the trip to orbit.
The rockets are expended and jettisoned, and the external tank is half empty.
For you to state that it fundamentally won't cut it with no credentials, no studies, no NOTHING, that, my friend, is what won't cut it.
Launch capabilities.
Armor is expensive to lift.
Doesn't matter. Kinetic energy tearing thru a sat destabilize it and disables it.
We've already seen what happens
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123438921888374497.html
You have to start somewhere.
Its been 20 (or 30) years.
QED.
Why an arm? Too slow.
Regular gun fire from a nose cannon or radar controlled short range rocket would do as well. Sats are thin skinned vehicles.
Single orbit?
Even the prototype is planned to fly for weeks.
Payload in orbit with cross range re-entry capability allows for retrieval of payload. Or DELIVERY of payload.
With a fleet of these, a few would always be within range is to almost any land mass on earth, on less than an hour's notice.
After all, if you can put the wheels on the hash marks at the end of any runway, you could also but the entire vehicle through any given window of any given building.
Right. Money pit.
That't why Scaled Composites http://scaled.com/ and Virgin Galactic http://www.virgingalactic.com/ are all betting money on re-entry vehicles.
Come on guy! Just because government projects do not have a profit motive does not mean it can never be workable.
I doubt this has anything at all to do with NASA, and NASA is in no position to reclaim anything from military projects.
This system is built on designs for flight test prototypes developed when the shuttle was being designed, and refined thereafter.
TFA says: "The official description of the mission talks of demonstrating "a rapid-turnaround airborne test bed." That makes sense, but there is no sign that anyone plans to fly the vehicle ever again" which is pure utter nonsense. You don't build a lander to fly once.
The article also suggests it will attempt never before attempted things such as automated approach and landing. Stuff the Russians demonstrated with SnowStorm. along with the automated rendezvous which Russian cargo launches have been doing for years.
This is the Air Forces access to payload deployment and return. There is no point in making it landable if all you need is delivery with no return.
This is the prototype of Predator Drone of space, and/or instantly deployable Command and Control platforms, with plausible dependability.
Ex-craniate folks, the Air Force does not intend to allow sat-killers go un-challenged when so much of US military operations rely on space based coms and control.
word
The tendency to charge for wifi at certain hotel chains is usually offset by their rewards program, where if you become a member (free), you get wifi for free. Not always.
Some chains provide free wifi in all hotels as a matter of course.
Some hotels used to block many ports. I stayed somewhere a couple years ago that blocked all mail ports so you couldn't send even when you were connecting thru a secure connection to your own mail server back at the office. Unbelievable. I found it necessary to have a backup Gmail account for that nonsense.
I absolutely will not stay at any place that does not have wifi. And I'm becoming less willing to pay for it. Like the TV in the room, its an expected standard amenity. I even carry my own router with me, as I often have more than one device to connect.
Yes the bandwidth is usually saturated in the evening porn hours but most of my work gets done in the morning.
Says who?
Is that common practice for other marine structures?
Well Nimby is hard to defeat.
Objections for marine deployment of this type of farm are mostly navigational (ships mostly skirt this area beyond nantucket Island but smaller craft and fishing vessels could see collisions), radar interference, and a whole bunch of people that want to push even visual impacts onto someone else. (Bird strikes are for the most part gross exaggerations, long since debunked.)
Driving in the west, I find the wind farms something majestic. I suppose I would not want one directly over my house, which is why the off shore solution is perfect for the eastern seaboard. These things are quiet, and have a proven track record of reliability. Standing up to the salt air may be an issue.
The Indian tribes build casinos on their own ancestral sacred grounds but somehow object to wind farms out on the water. This was never a sea-going tribe. But a few perks from Uncle Ted and sure enough a spirit dreamed up just last night will be annoyed.
Its odd that Kennedy's objections were enough to hold this project off under republican administrations, but as soon as he is dead, even the Democrats decide its good to go.
Having just swapped my iPhone 3Gs for a Nexus One, I can tell you I'm never going back. I now have an expensive ipod Touch (iPhone without a sim) sitting on my desk.
I have no idea what I'll ever use it for, since the Nexus does everything better. I'm not much of a gamer, so YMMV.
I was advised by the AT&T rep to wipe it and sell it on Ebay. She says there is a big market for them as people jailbreak them and unlock them and sell them overseas. She was drooling over the Nexus while changing my account to free me from Visual Voice Mail. Google Voice works better for voice mail.
John Gruber, who writes the Daring Fireball blog, said it was common knowledge among insiders that the iPhone was stolen from Apple, then purchased by Gizmodo.
So Giz bought arguably STOLEN merchandise? Then destroyed it?
Can those guys not spell Perp Walk, or what?
Go back and re-read the gismodo review. They said everything fit very tightly with no wasted space. You wouldn't do that if it were merely a prototypeing container.
And no, it has not been "pretty much acknowledged". Not in the article, and certainly not by Apple.
I'd still like to know what they were thinking when the put that fraudulent FCC id on it.