Outlook Web Access's limitations aren't the university's fault, they're Microsoft's. You only get the "premium" web client that does things like searching (!) if you have an IE user agent, and it won't actually work on anything but IE as far as I can tell. As for the second, that's not incompetence, it's policy. An Exchange server can mandate stricter security than the client's user preferences and they've clearly chosen to do so to keep your account secure. There are similar configurations in corporate situations.
Cats chase potential prey animals like lunatics, even when they've already established that they're not actually prey. Dogs engage in recreational activities involving sticks. Which sounds like an intelligent species?
Smarter people are not less social. It's a bad cliché used by antisocial people. Watch a research group at work or hang around a math department's coffee room to see how actual smart people get shit done.
Smart = antisocial is a fallacy anyway. It draws the wrong causal conclusion from childhood ostracisation, and completely disregards the vast majority of the great minds that were positively gregarious. More breakthroughs are made by socially-active Schrodingers than isolationist Newtons.
The ability to form complex, evolving social relationships requires mental abilities that are beyond the ken of most of the life forms on this planet, so it's a reasonable measure of intelligence when evaluating animals who can't hold the pencil for the MENSA exam.
The gropedown is what you get if you opt out of the scan. I'm sure that taking a scan and raising an anomaly involves much more vigorous investigation.
Linking your posts, I'm guessing that they created algorithms that are destructive, i.e. more than one start image could lead to the same end image, you can't just reverse it. A new way of doing that which preserves the information the TSA's interested in would be patentworthy. Your presumption that they just picked the first Photoshop filter they could apply to the problem needs substantiation.
Specifically, they tried to crash a vehicle loaded with explosives into the terminal building, but struck the bollards, ignited, and got beaten up while on fire. It was not a particularly great day for evil plots. Funnily enough the attempt has not had much of an impact on security. Even Edinburgh airport couldn't be bothered using it as some sort of rationale for the new passenger drop-off fee.
People aren't outraged about the nudity itself, they're outraged that they are (basically) being rendered nude against their wishes*. That's an entirely different issue, and quite a legitimate one. I've got no objection to a good steak but I'd still get pissy if an armed man started throwing slabs of beef at me before he'd let me on the bus.
*The choice between scan and "enhanced pat-down" amounts to coercion, IMO.
Ascribing it to a malevolent elite (reptilians?) makes the problem intractible. It's easier to solve when you realise that the people making these horrible decisions are the same kind of hacked-together animal brain as the rest of us, operating on similar drives toward similar objectives. That's not to say there aren't malevolent entities amoungst them, but those are the parasites, not the organism, and certainly not the pathology.
Indeed. It's phenomenologically pretty well-defined, inasmuch as we can set up systems and we know whether we're observing them or not, and what'll happen to them if we do observe them, but we haven't a clue as to the mechanistics of it all.
The technical term is a "measurement", which is an interaction with the particle which requires information on a property (which is defined by an operator). If a billiard ball strikes you, it observes your momentum and position. That's my understanding. I'm more puzzled by how it's possible to interact with a particle in a manner which doesn't cause its superposition to break down...
If a corporation is a legal person, and a corporation violates my IP, does the whole corporation lose its right to connect to the internet on the third strike? I'm going to assume "no". Reminded of that equal/egalitarian distinction someone made recently.
It's perfectly comprehensible - "numeric" parses as "numeric address" which pretty adequately sums up an IP address, while "IP holder" is pretty unambiguously "the person holding a particular IP address". Given that it's written for the legal trade it's completely understandable that they'd write it in their style. I wouldn't rip into a mathematician for saying I expand a wavefunction in a basis of gaussian functions instead of the proper jargon basis set.
You could call it the distinction between saying you're reading an amazing book from the store across the street, and you're reading an amazing book that's in the store across the street.
Finally, as a member of the Helmi stream, HIP 13044 most probably has an extragalactic origin. This implies that its history is likely different from those of the majority of known planet-hosting stars. HIP 13044 was probably attracted to the Milky Way several Ga ago. Before that, it could have had belonged to a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way similar to Fornax or the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (14). Because of the long galactic relaxation timescale, it is extremely unlikely that HIP 13044 b joined its host star through exchange with some Milky Way star, after the former had been tidally stripped. The planet HIP 13044 b could thus have a non-Galactic origin.
I've got the paper in front of me and statistically, you've got more chance of not being a douchebag than this does of being a rounding error. I mean that quantitatively: they calculated the chances of this being a false alarm at 5.5 × 10^-6, which sounds like pretty much the same chance as you being a reasonable human being.
They already surprise-announced a revolutionary new console*, it's the 3DS. They won't want to split their marketing efforts between two new machines at once. The Wii's more likely to be in line for a soft relaunch with a lot of Motionplus titles and a big push on online support, not a replacement.
Their iPhone sales figures this year are almost double those last year, quarter to quarter. It's simply not mathematically possible for 70% of iPhone 4 sales to be to existing customers.
An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.
If a HAM operator has bad reception, they've got bad reception in pretty optimal receiving conditions: a good antenna in a sensible place. So the signal must be the limiting factor. Amplification is not going to help that. Cellphone users try to get reception on tiny antennas, next to their leg, in the middle of their house. The signal outside might be pretty decent. Repeating it indoors could rescue it.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, your site wasn't cited by IBM's application, but by the USPTO examiner.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7552305.PN.&OS=PN/7552305&RS=PN/7552305
Outlook Web Access's limitations aren't the university's fault, they're Microsoft's. You only get the "premium" web client that does things like searching (!) if you have an IE user agent, and it won't actually work on anything but IE as far as I can tell. As for the second, that's not incompetence, it's policy. An Exchange server can mandate stricter security than the client's user preferences and they've clearly chosen to do so to keep your account secure. There are similar configurations in corporate situations.
I refute it thus.
Cats chase potential prey animals like lunatics, even when they've already established that they're not actually prey. Dogs engage in recreational activities involving sticks. Which sounds like an intelligent species?
Smarter people are not less social. It's a bad cliché used by antisocial people. Watch a research group at work or hang around a math department's coffee room to see how actual smart people get shit done.
You'd rather they gave them an algebra exam?
Smart = antisocial is a fallacy anyway. It draws the wrong causal conclusion from childhood ostracisation, and completely disregards the vast majority of the great minds that were positively gregarious. More breakthroughs are made by socially-active Schrodingers than isolationist Newtons.
The ability to form complex, evolving social relationships requires mental abilities that are beyond the ken of most of the life forms on this planet, so it's a reasonable measure of intelligence when evaluating animals who can't hold the pencil for the MENSA exam.
The gropedown is what you get if you opt out of the scan. I'm sure that taking a scan and raising an anomaly involves much more vigorous investigation.
Linking your posts, I'm guessing that they created algorithms that are destructive, i.e. more than one start image could lead to the same end image, you can't just reverse it. A new way of doing that which preserves the information the TSA's interested in would be patentworthy. Your presumption that they just picked the first Photoshop filter they could apply to the problem needs substantiation.
Specifically, they tried to crash a vehicle loaded with explosives into the terminal building, but struck the bollards, ignited, and got beaten up while on fire. It was not a particularly great day for evil plots. Funnily enough the attempt has not had much of an impact on security. Even Edinburgh airport couldn't be bothered using it as some sort of rationale for the new passenger drop-off fee.
People aren't outraged about the nudity itself, they're outraged that they are (basically) being rendered nude against their wishes*. That's an entirely different issue, and quite a legitimate one. I've got no objection to a good steak but I'd still get pissy if an armed man started throwing slabs of beef at me before he'd let me on the bus.
*The choice between scan and "enhanced pat-down" amounts to coercion, IMO.
Ascribing it to a malevolent elite (reptilians?) makes the problem intractible. It's easier to solve when you realise that the people making these horrible decisions are the same kind of hacked-together animal brain as the rest of us, operating on similar drives toward similar objectives. That's not to say there aren't malevolent entities amoungst them, but those are the parasites, not the organism, and certainly not the pathology.
There's a quantum version of the Monty Hall problem. Just knowing that scares the shit out of me.
Indeed. It's phenomenologically pretty well-defined, inasmuch as we can set up systems and we know whether we're observing them or not, and what'll happen to them if we do observe them, but we haven't a clue as to the mechanistics of it all.
Ah, in that case it's much more ambiguous than I had assumed.
The technical term is a "measurement", which is an interaction with the particle which requires information on a property (which is defined by an operator). If a billiard ball strikes you, it observes your momentum and position. That's my understanding. I'm more puzzled by how it's possible to interact with a particle in a manner which doesn't cause its superposition to break down...
If a corporation is a legal person, and a corporation violates my IP, does the whole corporation lose its right to connect to the internet on the third strike? I'm going to assume "no". Reminded of that equal/egalitarian distinction someone made recently.
It's perfectly comprehensible - "numeric" parses as "numeric address" which pretty adequately sums up an IP address, while "IP holder" is pretty unambiguously "the person holding a particular IP address". Given that it's written for the legal trade it's completely understandable that they'd write it in their style. I wouldn't rip into a mathematician for saying I expand a wavefunction in a basis of gaussian functions instead of the proper jargon basis set.
You could call it the distinction between saying you're reading an amazing book from the store across the street, and you're reading an amazing book that's in the store across the street.
The star is part of a group widely accepted to have an extragalactic origin due to their orbit.
They actually address that hypothesis:
Finally, as a member of the Helmi stream, HIP 13044 most
probably has an extragalactic origin. This implies that its
history is likely different from those of the majority of known
planet-hosting stars. HIP 13044 was probably attracted to the
Milky Way several Ga ago. Before that, it could have had
belonged to a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way similar to
Fornax or the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (14).
Because of the long galactic relaxation timescale, it is
extremely unlikely that HIP 13044 b joined its host star
through exchange with some Milky Way star, after the former
had been tidally stripped. The planet HIP 13044 b could thus
have a non-Galactic origin.
I've got the paper in front of me and statistically, you've got more chance of not being a douchebag than this does of being a rounding error. I mean that quantitatively: they calculated the chances of this being a false alarm at 5.5 × 10^-6, which sounds like pretty much the same chance as you being a reasonable human being.
They already surprise-announced a revolutionary new console*, it's the 3DS. They won't want to split their marketing efforts between two new machines at once. The Wii's more likely to be in line for a soft relaunch with a lot of Motionplus titles and a big push on online support, not a replacement.
*For sufficiently small values of revolutionary.
Their iPhone sales figures this year are almost double those last year, quarter to quarter. It's simply not mathematically possible for 70% of iPhone 4 sales to be to existing customers.
An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.
If a HAM operator has bad reception, they've got bad reception in pretty optimal receiving conditions: a good antenna in a sensible place. So the signal must be the limiting factor. Amplification is not going to help that. Cellphone users try to get reception on tiny antennas, next to their leg, in the middle of their house. The signal outside might be pretty decent. Repeating it indoors could rescue it.
Ground control to Major Tom, defragging disk and antivirus on...