Actually its not - a reasonably high capacity car like the Model S has no significant issues with charge time. A ridiculously small number of people drive over 250 miles in a day, the notion that not supporting them directly is a "major hurdle" is just plain incorrect. The number of people who drive over 250 miles a day who can't take 20 minutes or so every few hours to top up at a Supercharger station is even smaller, but we're already well into statistical insignificance at this point.
Its akin to claiming that since some people need to tow horse trailers, the small towing capacity of every modern mid-sized sedan is a "significant hurdle" that will prevent their adoption.
As someone else pointed out, it's even MORE appropriate given what he said in the sentence: “Supercapacitors store ten times less energy than current lithium-ion batteries, but they can last a thousand times longer.". That's a good way to contrast 10 with 1000, and it's said eloquently, making perfect sense to probably 99.9% of the population.
There are two problems with that theory. First, the storage capacity and the duration aren't actually comparable numbers. Second, if they were, you'd want to be comparing them at a factor of 10,000 - if the original sentence leads you to "contrast 10 with 1000," as you say then its poorly constructed. Contrasting "One tenth with one thousand," or "0.1 with 1,000" written numerically, would actually be the correct goal of the sentence.
All of that ignores the fact that the storage capacity varies with size but the amount of time does not, so its even more ridiculous to try to compare those numbers in the first place.
> In that example? "A quarter of a percent", by a long shot. So you're saying that "400 times less" is more complex than translating from two languages into "a quarter of a unit normalized to 100", then taking the reciprocal of one quarter and applying it to 100 to give 400?
Yes, because people use phrases like "a quarter of a percent" all the f'n time, but have to stop and think about what "400 times less" means. Its the same way that I never use the "compact" form of time intervals like bi-weekly and semi-monthly because it takes an order of magnitude less processing power for most normal humans to understand the more lengthy "every two weeks" and "twice a month" phrases instead of figuring out what some rarely used expression means.
I believe that the Kindle is an excellent device primarily because it does one thing - its an eReader. I don't normally write all over my paper books and have no desire to do so on the Kindle either. Far from a luddite, I've got a ton of technology devices, but sometimes simple task-focussed pieces are better. My paperwhite is easy on the eyes, the battery lasts for a long time, its very lightweight, and I never have to troubleshoot it or wonder why its various components aren't playing well with each other.
Not every device needs to expand its footprint until all are equal. Want to read on a Fire or an iPad? Feel free. Don't try to turn the regular Kindle into a poor version of one of those.
I still get 6-7 hours out of a 15" retina MBP used for development; add an extra 1/8" of thickness worth of battery and we'd be there now (although it wouldn't be as fun to carry around).
That's all well and good, but what rolls off the tongue quicker and is less ambiguous for other numbers? For example, "one three hundred and seventieth", or "three hundred and seventy times less"? The latter is clearly superior.
In that example? "A quarter of a percent", by a long shot.
Look, if we don't have to be accurate, then we can use much, much quicker and smoother language. We do, however, and while "three hundred and seventy times less," is easy to say, its hard to think about.
More to the point the goal of language, especially in a technical setting, is to convey ideas in a the way most likely to be understood by the listener, not they way more convenient to say by the speaker, outside of a very few situations.
An engine isn't that complicated a piece of machinery, especially compared to the rest of the vehicle. Any moderately handy high school kid can disassemble and reassemble one with a little help or a decent book.
Interestingly Musk recently said that in retrospect that's one of the things that he'd do differently; they ended up changing so much of the chassis that they didn't really get a lot of benefit from it, but used enough of it that they were still bound to it.
Because most telcos will quite happily let you email a massive file or carry on a one hour long low-latency roaming voice conversation for less money than they charge to send a few bytes "sometime in the next few seconds," that's why. Also, there's no reliable inexpensive gateway for non-cellular devices to tie into SMSs as there is for both voice calls and massive emails, even though it would be far easier to create one.
This was never a technology problem, it was a business problem.
It does that if and only if there are no other iMessage-enabled devices that can read it. One of the things that I enjoy about the feature is that I can use Messages on my laptop if I'm working, and my phone doesn't go bananas either reporting that it got texts or expecting me to deal with a sea of notifications - they're there in the history, but even if my phone is turned off or not on a network (happens a lot on planes that charge per-device for wifi) I can text to/from my laptop and nobody knows any different.
Figuring out when someone's phone is gone "for good" is a remarkably easy social problem but a very difficult technical one. Making it even easier than it is today for someone to Apple when their phone is gone is the solution, not some terribly complicated heuristics. Of course, that still requires someone to do something, which they'll complain about - but such is life.
A plug-in or Bluetooth keyboard and an HDMI monitor should let phones run more PC-style apps, with multiple visible windows.
PCs that are as powerful as the most powerful phones are so damn cheap that - since you're probably syncing everything on your phone out to clout storage anyway - you may as well just have a cheap PC permanently bolted to whatever workstation you have your monitor and keyboard on. It doesn't cost very much more, its far more convenient, and it lets you optimize the experience and applications in each case without making compromises.
There are specific rules about corporate gifts - they're not taxed as income to you, but outside of a very few well-stated regulations they're also not deductible as expenses to the company they way regular payments to you would be... and now we've once again achieved tax parity.
Actually the Fed is charged with two roles - managing the currency to balance low inflation with low unemployment. The fact that in recent years they've focussed on one to the exclusion of the other is a relatively recent occurrence that has much to do with our current wealth concentration issues.
You're assuming (probably correctly) that the experiment will be a failure. I was stating some things that would help make the adoption experiment more likely to succeed. If people are to start using bit coin, they'll need a safe way of doing so.
Thank you - I now have a very amusing picture in my head of a stoat oak. Possibly some kind of bizarre animal-vegetable hybrid formed by those self-same ex-MIT students who all got rich promoting the currency of our new distributed overloads?
The issue with BitCoin isn't the acquisition, its the storage and spending. Giving each student easy access to a university-run "bank" with safe backed-up storage and good access would be a big step in the right direction. Having everywhere in MIT that accepts dollars also accept BitCoin would do far more.
The reason that the dollar works - that all currency works, really - is that people need it to interact with the government. Make BitCoin the easiest way to interact with MIT (for daily use stuff even) and people will use it, which will force them to acquire it, which will entice more people to take it, etc.
Generally when you sign up for a paid service with license terms, part of the deal is sacrificing enough of your privacy to be able to sign the deal and identify yourself as a licensed customer (even for a free service) when you try to use it.
Keep in mind that there's been far less testing on the "fluid base that is safe," and the "flavoring that is safe" (after all, most things haven't been tested inhaled in vapor form) compared to the staggering amount of testing that's been done on vaccines that are safe, that JM believes is nowhere near enough even though they have the added side-effect over e-cigs of protecting millions of people from disease.
And yet, simultaneously, is quite different from the "anti-vaccination" position the article claims she has or held. As I said, she's wrong about the science, but that doesn't mean that she's lying about her position.
When she's on record as saying things like "If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism." (and she is), to me that's as good as saying, "The current polio vaccine causes autism." Other classic Jenny quotes that don't jibe with her current stance:
"Without a doubt in my mind, I believe that vaccinations triggered Evan's autism."
"People are also dying from vaccinations. Evan, my son, died in front of me for two minutes. You ask any mother in the autism community if we'll take the flu, the measles, over autism and day of the week. I think they need to wake up and stop hurting our kids."
So yeah, she's not anti-vaccine, she just doesn't feel that the current vaccines are safe and that you shouldn't take any that aren't. That's not misrepresenting her position, that's just repeating her words.
For my child, I asked for a schedule that would allow one shot per visit instead of the multiple shots they were and still are giving infants.
Which is in its very nature another way of stating that combining multiple vaccines is somehow less safe than giving multiple shots, which as far as I know has never been proven.
it does a disservice to people like her who don't understand the science behind vaccinations, and nonetheless want what's best for her kids.
Yes, because they're asking for what feels safer instead of what actually is safer, in this case leaving their children unimmunized for longer than they have to be even if they eventually "catch up" to the full schedule.
Did it the age manifestation of apraxia just happen to occur the day after the vaccinations? Maybe...but implying a correlation when the only change outside of the eat/sleep/poop routine was those shots is not exactly hard to do.
In fairness, at that point he'd only been alive for 180 days. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this hit randomly and see if we can rule it out.
For the subset of kids who suffer the same issues as your son, even assuming they could hit at any time during those first six months, the normal CDC schedule of vaccines at birth, 1, 2, 4 and 6 months means that there's a 2.7% chance of the effect hitting on the day of a vaccine. You mention that the affect was the day after the vaccine, so if we could only the same-day and next-day chances, that's covering 5.4% of the child's life.
Did it the age manifestation of apraxia just happen to occur the day after the vaccinations? Maybe...but implying a correlation when the only change outside of the eat/sleep/poop routine was those shots is not exactly hard to do.
Those are actually pretty good odds, considering that we rarely hear specific timing about kids affected outside of a normal vaccine schedule. I'm very sorry that your child was affected, and as a parent of two myself thoughts like that scare me as well, but I'm not seeing an evidence of causation here.
I had both mumps and measles, it was hardly a big deal. If the kids are old enough it's probably even better they get it naturally and get over it than take the vaccine.
Since the well-known plural of anecdote is data, I'll offer up that I had measles when I was 17 (I had been vaccinated, but I was also suffering from CMV mono at the time which weakens your immune system something fierce - vaccinations are probably why none of my friends caught it from me though). Put me in the hospital for close on two weeks, of which I remember about a day. Its no laughing matter.
This article is about a publicly available dataset of bicycle journey data that contains enough information to track the movements of individual cyclists across London
From TFA: "What may surprise you is that this record includes unique customer identifiers, as well as the location and date/time for the start and end of each journey."
The unique ID? Yeah, maybe that's a problem, likely not that big a deal but also easy enough to get rid of (although if we do that, we lose the ability to track joined journeys, identify frequent vs. infrequent users, &c. But that's not the point here.
Identifying which bike stations you check a bike out from and return a bike to is very different from identifying your movements across London. Very different indeed. I'd argue that you do have an expectation of privacy when you stop along the way to get a cup of coffee, a bit of nookie, or a gyro. As a public transportation user, though, your checkin and checkout actions are totally different than your route.
In fact, it'd be damned useful to be able to see and show that you did - or did not - retrieve or return a bike at a particular place and time. Its also useful to be able to tell where that bike went in the future.
Think about library books. Even in the "olden days," it was frequently possible to see who checked out a book, when they got it, and when they returned it. You couldn't, however, tell whether or not they liked it, if they read it in the bathtub, or if they let their SO read a page or two along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually its not - a reasonably high capacity car like the Model S has no significant issues with charge time. A ridiculously small number of people drive over 250 miles in a day, the notion that not supporting them directly is a "major hurdle" is just plain incorrect. The number of people who drive over 250 miles a day who can't take 20 minutes or so every few hours to top up at a Supercharger station is even smaller, but we're already well into statistical insignificance at this point.
Its akin to claiming that since some people need to tow horse trailers, the small towing capacity of every modern mid-sized sedan is a "significant hurdle" that will prevent their adoption.
As someone else pointed out, it's even MORE appropriate given what he said in the sentence: “Supercapacitors store ten times less energy than current lithium-ion batteries, but they can last a thousand times longer.". That's a good way to contrast 10 with 1000, and it's said eloquently, making perfect sense to probably 99.9% of the population.
There are two problems with that theory. First, the storage capacity and the duration aren't actually comparable numbers. Second, if they were, you'd want to be comparing them at a factor of 10,000 - if the original sentence leads you to "contrast 10 with 1000," as you say then its poorly constructed. Contrasting "One tenth with one thousand," or "0.1 with 1,000" written numerically, would actually be the correct goal of the sentence.
All of that ignores the fact that the storage capacity varies with size but the amount of time does not, so its even more ridiculous to try to compare those numbers in the first place.
> In that example? "A quarter of a percent", by a long shot.
So you're saying that "400 times less" is more complex than translating from two languages into "a quarter of a unit normalized to 100", then taking the reciprocal of one quarter and applying it to 100 to give 400?
Yes, because people use phrases like "a quarter of a percent" all the f'n time, but have to stop and think about what "400 times less" means. Its the same way that I never use the "compact" form of time intervals like bi-weekly and semi-monthly because it takes an order of magnitude less processing power for most normal humans to understand the more lengthy "every two weeks" and "twice a month" phrases instead of figuring out what some rarely used expression means.
I believe that the Kindle is an excellent device primarily because it does one thing - its an eReader. I don't normally write all over my paper books and have no desire to do so on the Kindle either. Far from a luddite, I've got a ton of technology devices, but sometimes simple task-focussed pieces are better. My paperwhite is easy on the eyes, the battery lasts for a long time, its very lightweight, and I never have to troubleshoot it or wonder why its various components aren't playing well with each other.
Not every device needs to expand its footprint until all are equal. Want to read on a Fire or an iPad? Feel free. Don't try to turn the regular Kindle into a poor version of one of those.
I still get 6-7 hours out of a 15" retina MBP used for development; add an extra 1/8" of thickness worth of battery and we'd be there now (although it wouldn't be as fun to carry around).
That's all well and good, but what rolls off the tongue quicker and is less ambiguous for other numbers? For example, "one three hundred and seventieth", or "three hundred and seventy times less"? The latter is clearly superior.
In that example? "A quarter of a percent", by a long shot.
Look, if we don't have to be accurate, then we can use much, much quicker and smoother language. We do, however, and while "three hundred and seventy times less," is easy to say, its hard to think about.
More to the point the goal of language, especially in a technical setting, is to convey ideas in a the way most likely to be understood by the listener, not they way more convenient to say by the speaker, outside of a very few situations.
An engine isn't that complicated a piece of machinery, especially compared to the rest of the vehicle. Any moderately handy high school kid can disassemble and reassemble one with a little help or a decent book.
Interestingly Musk recently said that in retrospect that's one of the things that he'd do differently; they ended up changing so much of the chassis that they didn't really get a lot of benefit from it, but used enough of it that they were still bound to it.
Because most telcos will quite happily let you email a massive file or carry on a one hour long low-latency roaming voice conversation for less money than they charge to send a few bytes "sometime in the next few seconds," that's why. Also, there's no reliable inexpensive gateway for non-cellular devices to tie into SMSs as there is for both voice calls and massive emails, even though it would be far easier to create one.
This was never a technology problem, it was a business problem.
It does that if and only if there are no other iMessage-enabled devices that can read it. One of the things that I enjoy about the feature is that I can use Messages on my laptop if I'm working, and my phone doesn't go bananas either reporting that it got texts or expecting me to deal with a sea of notifications - they're there in the history, but even if my phone is turned off or not on a network (happens a lot on planes that charge per-device for wifi) I can text to/from my laptop and nobody knows any different.
Figuring out when someone's phone is gone "for good" is a remarkably easy social problem but a very difficult technical one. Making it even easier than it is today for someone to Apple when their phone is gone is the solution, not some terribly complicated heuristics. Of course, that still requires someone to do something, which they'll complain about - but such is life.
A plug-in or Bluetooth keyboard and an HDMI monitor should let phones run more PC-style apps, with multiple visible windows.
PCs that are as powerful as the most powerful phones are so damn cheap that - since you're probably syncing everything on your phone out to clout storage anyway - you may as well just have a cheap PC permanently bolted to whatever workstation you have your monitor and keyboard on. It doesn't cost very much more, its far more convenient, and it lets you optimize the experience and applications in each case without making compromises.
Actually, you are liable to pay capital gains (or deduct capital losses) on currency trading: http://www.fxop.com/Forex%20Ta... is but one of sites that will explain in more detail. Or go straight to the horses mouth: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax...
There are specific rules about corporate gifts - they're not taxed as income to you, but outside of a very few well-stated regulations they're also not deductible as expenses to the company they way regular payments to you would be... and now we've once again achieved tax parity.
Nice try though.
Actually the Fed is charged with two roles - managing the currency to balance low inflation with low unemployment. The fact that in recent years they've focussed on one to the exclusion of the other is a relatively recent occurrence that has much to do with our current wealth concentration issues.
You're assuming (probably correctly) that the experiment will be a failure. I was stating some things that would help make the adoption experiment more likely to succeed. If people are to start using bit coin, they'll need a safe way of doing so.
Thank you - I now have a very amusing picture in my head of a stoat oak. Possibly some kind of bizarre animal-vegetable hybrid formed by those self-same ex-MIT students who all got rich promoting the currency of our new distributed overloads?
The issue with BitCoin isn't the acquisition, its the storage and spending. Giving each student easy access to a university-run "bank" with safe backed-up storage and good access would be a big step in the right direction. Having everywhere in MIT that accepts dollars also accept BitCoin would do far more.
The reason that the dollar works - that all currency works, really - is that people need it to interact with the government. Make BitCoin the easiest way to interact with MIT (for daily use stuff even) and people will use it, which will force them to acquire it, which will entice more people to take it, etc.
Generally when you sign up for a paid service with license terms, part of the deal is sacrificing enough of your privacy to be able to sign the deal and identify yourself as a licensed customer (even for a free service) when you try to use it.
Keep in mind that there's been far less testing on the "fluid base that is safe," and the "flavoring that is safe" (after all, most things haven't been tested inhaled in vapor form) compared to the staggering amount of testing that's been done on vaccines that are safe, that JM believes is nowhere near enough even though they have the added side-effect over e-cigs of protecting millions of people from disease.
That's where the contradiction comes from.
And yet, simultaneously, is quite different from the "anti-vaccination" position the article claims she has or held. As I said, she's wrong about the science, but that doesn't mean that she's lying about her position.
When she's on record as saying things like "If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism." (and she is), to me that's as good as saying, "The current polio vaccine causes autism." Other classic Jenny quotes that don't jibe with her current stance:
"Without a doubt in my mind, I believe that vaccinations triggered Evan's autism."
"People are also dying from vaccinations. Evan, my son, died in front of me for two minutes. You ask any mother in the autism community if we'll take the flu, the measles, over autism and day of the week. I think they need to wake up and stop hurting our kids."
So yeah, she's not anti-vaccine, she just doesn't feel that the current vaccines are safe and that you shouldn't take any that aren't. That's not misrepresenting her position, that's just repeating her words.
I believe it was none other than the great Homer Simpson himself who once described beer as "the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
Except that's not what she means. From her op-ed:
For my child, I asked for a schedule that would allow one shot per visit instead of the multiple shots they were and still are giving infants.
Which is in its very nature another way of stating that combining multiple vaccines is somehow less safe than giving multiple shots, which as far as I know has never been proven.
it does a disservice to people like her who don't understand the science behind vaccinations, and nonetheless want what's best for her kids.
Yes, because they're asking for what feels safer instead of what actually is safer, in this case leaving their children unimmunized for longer than they have to be even if they eventually "catch up" to the full schedule.
Did it the age manifestation of apraxia just happen to occur the day after the vaccinations? Maybe...but implying a correlation when the only change outside of the eat/sleep/poop routine was those shots is not exactly hard to do.
In fairness, at that point he'd only been alive for 180 days. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this hit randomly and see if we can rule it out.
For the subset of kids who suffer the same issues as your son, even assuming they could hit at any time during those first six months, the normal CDC schedule of vaccines at birth, 1, 2, 4 and 6 months means that there's a 2.7% chance of the effect hitting on the day of a vaccine. You mention that the affect was the day after the vaccine, so if we could only the same-day and next-day chances, that's covering 5.4% of the child's life.
Did it the age manifestation of apraxia just happen to occur the day after the vaccinations? Maybe...but implying a correlation when the only change outside of the eat/sleep/poop routine was those shots is not exactly hard to do.
Those are actually pretty good odds, considering that we rarely hear specific timing about kids affected outside of a normal vaccine schedule. I'm very sorry that your child was affected, and as a parent of two myself thoughts like that scare me as well, but I'm not seeing an evidence of causation here.
I had both mumps and measles, it was hardly a big deal. If the kids are old enough it's probably even better they get it naturally and get over it than take the vaccine.
Since the well-known plural of anecdote is data, I'll offer up that I had measles when I was 17 (I had been vaccinated, but I was also suffering from CMV mono at the time which weakens your immune system something fierce - vaccinations are probably why none of my friends caught it from me though). Put me in the hospital for close on two weeks, of which I remember about a day. Its no laughing matter.
This article is about a publicly available dataset of bicycle journey data that contains enough information to track the movements of individual cyclists across London
From TFA: "What may surprise you is that this record includes unique customer identifiers, as well as the location and date/time for the start and end of each journey."
The unique ID? Yeah, maybe that's a problem, likely not that big a deal but also easy enough to get rid of (although if we do that, we lose the ability to track joined journeys, identify frequent vs. infrequent users, &c. But that's not the point here.
Identifying which bike stations you check a bike out from and return a bike to is very different from identifying your movements across London. Very different indeed. I'd argue that you do have an expectation of privacy when you stop along the way to get a cup of coffee, a bit of nookie, or a gyro. As a public transportation user, though, your checkin and checkout actions are totally different than your route.
In fact, it'd be damned useful to be able to see and show that you did - or did not - retrieve or return a bike at a particular place and time. Its also useful to be able to tell where that bike went in the future.
Think about library books. Even in the "olden days," it was frequently possible to see who checked out a book, when they got it, and when they returned it. You couldn't, however, tell whether or not they liked it, if they read it in the bathtub, or if they let their SO read a page or two along the way.
Same here, just with bikes. Sorry guys, no news.