And most people don't understand statistics, however good they are, and draw wrong conclusions. Case in point: the author of TFA doesn't seem to have a clue what a likelihood ratio (LR) is. In the article it comes across as a type of comparison - contrasted with RMP (random match probability) and RMNE (random man not excluded), which are different tests to apply to the data. But actually LR is a way of presenting a probability which is used by forensic scientists because it's supposed to be easier for juries to understand - so you could present an RMP result as an LR, or an RMNE result as an LR.
FWIW, I'm not defending any of the statistics in TFA as good. I notice a complete absence of any error estimates. And I distrust forensic match probabilities in general because I've seen forensic fingerprint analysis software which uses pseudorandom numbers in the computation of the match probability and can vary the LRs presented (to 16s.f., believe it or not) by an order of magnitude if you recalculate.
Sound systems tend not to be entirely digital. While all the signal transmission internally may be digital, the speakers want an analogue input. But I feel I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll leave it there.
I'm assuming that the ground of the digital input is connected to the ground of the D-A converter that feeds the output, so that even though each bit is correctly decoded and the signal is intact, the noise in the ground is transmitted to the output.
Since both are carrying digital data, how is one stream of digital data any better?
Electrical hookup vs optical hookup isn't just digital vs digital. You have to consider grounding effects too. If the base signal is identical but you remove a source of mains hum by breaking a ground loop you can have a very audible improvement.
(I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this thing is that complicated)
The problem with the law, at least in common law jurisdictions, is that while it may seem perfectly uncomplicated, there's always the possibility that some judgement you haven't heard of has redefined a word in the statute. Taking the quoted prohibition at face value it's quite clear that it does not prohibit possessing an image file, but I wouldn't want to bet against a ruling that when Joe Bloggs views the image on Wikipedia the HTTP stream sent by Wikipedia constitutes making an "engraving, photograph, print, or impression".
That's great if you control all the reactors. In the case of a nuclear attack on the US, I rather suspect that the source of the fissionable material would not be a US-based reactor. You'd need the IAEA to set up a register of signatures and conduct checks on all reactors to ensure that they're being applied correctly. (And that still ignores the unknown reactors, although really there's not much anyone can do about that).
I wouldn't start with web stuff either - you want a classic programming background (which will be a bit depth-first) to see if you can handle it.
Depends. If your goal is being able to develop small websites, it might make sense to start by building static websites, aiming to write valid XHTML. That way you can get into the mindset of following syntax rules and understanding that just because it compiles (passes the validator) it doesn't mean it works.
The presentation went on to explain what happened because years ago in Java 1.1 and 1.2 it was nasty having to write for concurrency on servers using IO so you'd switch to NIO and be happy.
NIO was new in 1.4, so something's been garbled somewhere.
I notice the scare quotes you put around "contract". Is that because you're wondering, as I am, whether any losing authors have ever contested the existence of a contract on the grounds of lack of consideration?
The worst part is that there is stuff in most bills that even the guy who introduces it doesn't know is in there. And some of the stuff that is hidden from him, he would oppose if he knew it was there.
And that doesn't seem insane to you?! The justice system is based in part on the principle that everyone is capable of knowing the law: that's why ignorance is no defence. If even the people who introduce the law can't keep track of what it says, the system has serious problems. Whether the problems are intentional or not is irrelevant.
To the person who moderated PP troll: Chilean isn't closely linked to NATO (First World) or the Warsaw Pact (Second World), and is by definition a Third World country. The designation is political, not economic.
It's more like 2.5 pages (official text in Spanish - the document is 4 pages, but there's a lot of padding and some formalities at either end) but your point stands. The U.S. legislative system is insane.
Assuming that you can look at a series of coordinates for Bezier control points and visualise the result. If you can, I venture to suggest that you're exceptional.
I'm not at all convinced that being able to add a new() constraint to your type variables makes up for not having covariant and contravariant bounds. Can you explain your position?
Are you sure about the adjustment layers? I think it has them but it's just not obvious. In the Layers window there's a drop-down which defaults to Normal but can be changed to give a number of layer types. What it does lack is layer grouping so that you could apply different adjustment layers to different source image layers.
Slashdot Mirror
And most people don't understand statistics, however good they are, and draw wrong conclusions. Case in point: the author of TFA doesn't seem to have a clue what a likelihood ratio (LR) is. In the article it comes across as a type of comparison - contrasted with RMP (random match probability) and RMNE (random man not excluded), which are different tests to apply to the data. But actually LR is a way of presenting a probability which is used by forensic scientists because it's supposed to be easier for juries to understand - so you could present an RMP result as an LR, or an RMNE result as an LR.
FWIW, I'm not defending any of the statistics in TFA as good. I notice a complete absence of any error estimates. And I distrust forensic match probabilities in general because I've seen forensic fingerprint analysis software which uses pseudorandom numbers in the computation of the match probability and can vary the LRs presented (to 16s.f., believe it or not) by an order of magnitude if you recalculate.
Sound systems tend not to be entirely digital. While all the signal transmission internally may be digital, the speakers want an analogue input. But I feel I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll leave it there.
I'm assuming that the ground of the digital input is connected to the ground of the D-A converter that feeds the output, so that even though each bit is correctly decoded and the signal is intact, the noise in the ground is transmitted to the output.
Since both are carrying digital data, how is one stream of digital data any better?
Electrical hookup vs optical hookup isn't just digital vs digital. You have to consider grounding effects too. If the base signal is identical but you remove a source of mains hum by breaking a ground loop you can have a very audible improvement.
(I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this thing is that complicated)
The problem with the law, at least in common law jurisdictions, is that while it may seem perfectly uncomplicated, there's always the possibility that some judgement you haven't heard of has redefined a word in the statute. Taking the quoted prohibition at face value it's quite clear that it does not prohibit possessing an image file, but I wouldn't want to bet against a ruling that when Joe Bloggs views the image on Wikipedia the HTTP stream sent by Wikipedia constitutes making an "engraving, photograph, print, or impression".
Xine has skipped it without problems with every DVD drive I've ever used.
That's great if you control all the reactors. In the case of a nuclear attack on the US, I rather suspect that the source of the fissionable material would not be a US-based reactor. You'd need the IAEA to set up a register of signatures and conduct checks on all reactors to ensure that they're being applied correctly. (And that still ignores the unknown reactors, although really there's not much anyone can do about that).
I wouldn't start with web stuff either - you want a classic programming background (which will be a bit depth-first) to see if you can handle it.
Depends. If your goal is being able to develop small websites, it might make sense to start by building static websites, aiming to write valid XHTML. That way you can get into the mindset of following syntax rules and understanding that just because it compiles (passes the validator) it doesn't mean it works.
The presentation went on to explain what happened because years ago in Java 1.1 and 1.2 it was nasty having to write for concurrency on servers using IO so you'd switch to NIO and be happy.
NIO was new in 1.4, so something's been garbled somewhere.
I think a WB exec equated it to Coca-Cola coming out of your faucet for free, and suggesting that means no one would ever by a Coke again.
Was Dasani some Coca-Cola exec's attempt to prove them wrong?
I notice the scare quotes you put around "contract". Is that because you're wondering, as I am, whether any losing authors have ever contested the existence of a contract on the grounds of lack of consideration?
Forward (over wire or on a different frequency) to another tower elsewhere which pretends to be the phone?
Try "dessert".
The Times wasn't Fox News. Murdoch's populist propaganda newspaper in Britain is The Sun, and that's not paywalled.
No, it's more like a "say" than a "see".
Do you mean that Linux kernel updates aren't primarily released in diff form? Seems to me that the problem there is a lack of decent patch tools.
The worst part is that there is stuff in most bills that even the guy who introduces it doesn't know is in there. And some of the stuff that is hidden from him, he would oppose if he knew it was there.
And that doesn't seem insane to you?! The justice system is based in part on the principle that everyone is capable of knowing the law: that's why ignorance is no defence. If even the people who introduce the law can't keep track of what it says, the system has serious problems. Whether the problems are intentional or not is irrelevant.
To the person who moderated PP troll: Chilean isn't closely linked to NATO (First World) or the Warsaw Pact (Second World), and is by definition a Third World country. The designation is political, not economic.
It's more like 2.5 pages (official text in Spanish - the document is 4 pages, but there's a lot of padding and some formalities at either end) but your point stands. The U.S. legislative system is insane.
It's not actually law yet. The last sentence of TFA states (my translation)
The Chamber of Deputies sent the present bill to the Executive so that it might comment or proceed to promulgating it as a Law of the Republic.
However, the Executive are quoted earlier as approving of it, so this should be a formality.
easy to make and edit by hand (it's xml!)
Assuming that you can look at a series of coordinates for Bezier control points and visualise the result. If you can, I venture to suggest that you're exceptional.
And also that FM is more tolerant of bad reception.
The Generics in .NET put Java's to shame.
I'm not at all convinced that being able to add a new() constraint to your type variables makes up for not having covariant and contravariant bounds. Can you explain your position?
Are you sure about the adjustment layers? I think it has them but it's just not obvious. In the Layers window there's a drop-down which defaults to Normal but can be changed to give a number of layer types. What it does lack is layer grouping so that you could apply different adjustment layers to different source image layers.
I read the headline and thought that was what it was about.