Total bullshit on the part of the media... The first version of the bill was the one that the news picked up and, well, just plain made up bald-faced lies about. Here it is:
"Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."
These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.
This version of the text totally reverses your conclusions. Was this "linear-only" text earlier than the one you quoted? Or did it come afterwards, indicating that the legislative draft actually got worse over time?
If the value of pi was largely driven by human activities, and those human activities were within their jurisdiction, then yes it would be like Indiana.
We take my 10-month old daughter to "Baby Story Time" at nearby libraries. Last week one of the libraries brought in some zoo animals for the kids to pet.
My iPad and SurfacePro aren't as good at telling stories to baby. There's less social interaction and she gets too fixated on the screen. Also tries to eat it.
They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)." "Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes." "30 is twice as fast." "That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant.
I think you're wrong. I started with Qwest, switch to Comcast out of frustration, moved house to a different neighborhood in Seattle, switched to Qwest out of frustration, and switched back to Comcast out of frustration.
Qwest does reliably deliver the "slower than comcast" part of its promise. The headline slower peak speeds are indicative of overall slower peak speeds. Qwest slows things down uniformly and irritatingly no matter what is at the head end of the service.
I've kept my old Buffalo running Tomato. It's fine as a router. I like the loopback functionality. I have everything set up find and don't want to change.
But frankly its WIFI was bad. It apparently couldn't cope with the way that modern devices communicate over wifi. Its wifi would get stuck every few days and require a reboot. It's not fast. Its range isn't good.
I just bought an Apple Airport Extreme. Disclaimer is that I work at Microsoft, and joined the company because I'm a Microsoft fanboy. But I bought the Apple base station solely in wifi mode, and it got extra range, and it doesn't crap out as much, and I'm delighted with it. It took an hour to set up (the setup software didn't work on my MBA so I had to install Airport Utilities onto my Windows notebook). But since then it's been running fine without worry.
The point of async+await is that they're COMPOSITIONAL with respect to other language constructs - e.g. you can put an await inside a for loop, or inside a try/catch block. It's impossible to do compositional asynchrony just as a library.
(and the evidence is in, that compositional asynchrony is a game-changer and significantly more productive than trying to do it with callbacks and libraries).
This paper flat out says that it's impossible to harvest enough energy from RF sources to power any kind of radio transmitter. Instead, it takes advantage of the existing idea that although you can't transmit your own signals, you can at least selectively block or intefere with someone else's RF signals. And the paper's clever invention is to apply this known technique to wifi in particular, so as to work with off-the-shelf wifi routers.
By contrast, iFind claimed it could harvest enough energy from RF to power a bluetooth transmitter.
Yeah, we got our grandmother an iPad, showed her repeatedly how to use it over the course of a week, but she has never once been able to do a conversation unassisted. I think you greatly underestimate how difficult it can be for an old person.
Oh I'm sure Russia will affect America. But I what I asked was this:
"Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future?"
No, there isn't a clear course of action. It's not obvious which actions would make the situation better and which actions would make the situation worse.
At first I read about Verizon throttling their "unlimited data plan" customers and I got concerned.
But then I read that the throttling will NOT affect the majority of customers who are paying over the odds for an unlimited data plan that they don't actually need. That's good. So long as they're not affected, things are okay. Please go ahead with your plans, Verizon!
I don't think WaveGlider is a submersible. It's a surface-vessel, with solar panels!, and with energy-generating fins in its keel. Wikipedia explains: "The Wave Glider is composed of two parts: the float is roughly the size and shape of a surfboard and stays at the surface; the sub has wings and hangs 6 meters below on an umbilical tether"
So yes, it's impressive as heck that the WaveGlider survived a typhoon. The float part of it will be tossed around like crazy on top of the waves. It will stay tethered to the float part underwater. The tether will be yanked every which way.
there are actually back-doors specifically built into iOS devices -- back doors not used by any Apple software on the device, not usable by genius-bar or any user-benefitting scenario, but still that make it possible for "someone" to get at a lot of the personal data.
Quote: "Why do we need a packet-sniffer running on 600 million personal iOS devices?"
Quote: "com.apple.mobile_file_relay - exposes much personal data - very intentionally placed and intended to dump data from the device by request"
Quote: "Apple has worked hard to ensure that Apple can access data on behalf of law enforcement.
I think the reason "anything can be picked apart" is because Apple DO create backdoors for the benefit of government, but for PR purposes they want to appear to deny it.
This runs into the problem of cluck-bait... Stupid zero-content fluff pieces but with headlines that entice you in (e.g. Upworthy, HuffingtonPost) but then you discover that they're stupid. If I had to pay even 1c before seeing the content (and discovering that I'd been duped) then I'd start to get angry, and start to refuse to pay for more sites. Even on legit sites like BBC News, by "internet attention span" is satisfied by about half way through the article, so something long enough to be a good preview is ling enough for me not to need to pay.
I seem to recall reading something like 1% of customers generating 98% of the in-app purchases, as a general trend across the industry. Can't remember where I read it though.
No not at all! Where did you get that from? (and actually, even back in 2002 I remember having WAP and IMAP on my phone, so they also divulged my location).
What I want is (1) for Apple to continue to be truthful, (2) for the "don't let app/webpage feature use my location" to be trustworthy with respect to apps and to all the various ways that location can be deduced (bluetooth, wifi, cellular, GPS), and (3) for COMPLETE disclosure of the other times when the iOS system keeps a record of those location-related metadata things, and of all the times when the iOS system uploads or indirectly implies information from these.
I'm not sure if this is a moving goalposts or no real scotsman issue. How can apple issue a denial that would satisfy people like you? Surely anything would be picked apart.
"Whenever you access an online service, that online service will know your approximate geographical location to city level, and also the intervening network infrastructure (cellphone towers &c.) will know. This is common to ALL mobile devices. Also, whenever your device is set to connect to networks (cellphone, wifi, bluetooth,...) then those networks also know your approximate location. Again, this is common to all mobile devices.
Beyond that, your iPhone internally knows your location through various means (GPS, cellular triangulation, wifi base station names). However, all location information from these sources (including information which might indirectly allow your approximation location to be deduced) is UNAVAILABLE to apps unless you specifically opt to allow them to have the information. Therefore, apps are unable to pass the information on to any third party.
Other than apps, your iPhone also includes system software. If you chose the following settings [...] then the iPhone keeps no historical logs of location information or metadata. Additionally, the iPhone itself never allows any location data to leave the iPhone, except when you connect it to a computer via iTunes."
I don't know about everyone else, but this would satisfy me!
The nature of this particular question seems very naive. I suppose that you haven't been shot at much!
It's a semantic question to determine if your numbers for "shot at city" and "into city" are referring to the same thing, or to different things.
The [200] number comes from a few sources.
It sounds like, from what you say, the only number comparison that gives a meaningful idea of IronDome effectiveness is "count of audible intercepts" vs "count of audible impacts". All other numbers are incomensurable.
[You have heard+felt 4-5 rockets hit the ground] and [have heard] above 150 [aerial intercepts] by now
Those are the key numbers. You indicated that you believe that all of the aerial intercepts were of rockets that were going to head into your city. And you believe that the 4-5 rockets on the ground were in the city (which we can assume IronDome also tried to hit). Therefore, from your numbers, and based on your beliefs, you think IronDome is able to hit 97% of rockets.
You also indicated that you think your hearing of aerial intercepts isn't as effective as your hearing of ground impacts. Therefore the number might be higher than 97%.
The Israeli army says the number is slightly lower than 90%, so your numbers are in the same ballpark - http://thebulletin.org/iron-do...
In the frustrating interview with NPR, the expert said "5% or lower". But it wasn't clear, and Siegel didn't think to ask, whether this was referring to the chance of stopping a rocket that they intended to stop (which is what you're measuring), or to the chance that a single interceptor would stop a single rocket. I can't tell whether IronDome fires multiple intercepts per incoming rocket or just one.
Slashdot Mirror
OCaml. JavaScript.
Total bullshit on the part of the media... The first version of the bill was the one that the news picked up and, well, just plain made up bald-faced lies about.
Here it is:
"Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios
of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant,
peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."
Clovis, how do you reconcile the "first version" text you quoted with this one? http://www.nccoast.org/uploads...
These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time
period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate
future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.
This version of the text totally reverses your conclusions. Was this "linear-only" text earlier than the one you quoted? Or did it come afterwards, indicating that the legislative draft actually got worse over time?
You're thinking of the wrong half of the scenario.
The other half is a driver who decides to take control of his/her own volition, for whatever reason.
Like many manual overrides, it's user-initiated, not computer-initiated.
It's crazy to solve this with a for loop O(n) when you can solve it with a direct formula O(1).
What exactly are you looking for in your candidates?
If the value of pi was largely driven by human activities, and those human activities were within their jurisdiction, then yes it would be like Indiana.
We take my 10-month old daughter to "Baby Story Time" at nearby libraries. Last week one of the libraries brought in some zoo animals for the kids to pet.
My iPad and SurfacePro aren't as good at telling stories to baby. There's less social interaction and she gets too fixated on the screen. Also tries to eat it.
They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)." "Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes." "30 is twice as fast." "That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant.
I think you're wrong. I started with Qwest, switch to Comcast out of frustration, moved house to a different neighborhood in Seattle, switched to Qwest out of frustration, and switched back to Comcast out of frustration.
Qwest does reliably deliver the "slower than comcast" part of its promise. The headline slower peak speeds are indicative of overall slower peak speeds. Qwest slows things down uniformly and irritatingly no matter what is at the head end of the service.
This paper: assumes $0.2 - $0.3 billion to decommission a nuclear power plant (based on a 2013 report by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
UK: $9 billion decommissioning costs per plant, based on an estimate by the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Japan: $1 billion per plant so far, but estimated $1.8 billion per plant for the remainder
I suspect this paper gets its results by downplaying by an order of magnitude the decommissioning costs of nuclear power.
I've kept my old Buffalo running Tomato. It's fine as a router. I like the loopback functionality. I have everything set up find and don't want to change.
But frankly its WIFI was bad. It apparently couldn't cope with the way that modern devices communicate over wifi. Its wifi would get stuck every few days and require a reboot. It's not fast. Its range isn't good.
I just bought an Apple Airport Extreme. Disclaimer is that I work at Microsoft, and joined the company because I'm a Microsoft fanboy. But I bought the Apple base station solely in wifi mode, and it got extra range, and it doesn't crap out as much, and I'm delighted with it. It took an hour to set up (the setup software didn't work on my MBA so I had to install Airport Utilities onto my Windows notebook). But since then it's been running fine without worry.
The point of async+await is that they're COMPOSITIONAL with respect to other language constructs - e.g. you can put an await inside a for loop, or inside a try/catch block. It's impossible to do compositional asynchrony just as a library.
(and the evidence is in, that compositional asynchrony is a game-changer and significantly more productive than trying to do it with callbacks and libraries).
You need language innovation for the things that can't be expressed in libraries, e.g.
* async+await from F#/VB/C# (later adapted into C++, JS, Python).
* non-nullable reference types from Haskell/F# (later adapted into Swift)
It's very different from iFind...
This paper flat out says that it's impossible to harvest enough energy from RF sources to power any kind of radio transmitter. Instead, it takes advantage of the existing idea that although you can't transmit your own signals, you can at least selectively block or intefere with someone else's RF signals. And the paper's clever invention is to apply this known technique to wifi in particular, so as to work with off-the-shelf wifi routers.
By contrast, iFind claimed it could harvest enough energy from RF to power a bluetooth transmitter.
Yeah, we got our grandmother an iPad, showed her repeatedly how to use it over the course of a week, but she has never once been able to do a conversation unassisted. I think you greatly underestimate how difficult it can be for an old person.
I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.
Oh I'm sure Russia will affect America. But I what I asked was this:
"Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future?"
No, there isn't a clear course of action. It's not obvious which actions would make the situation better and which actions would make the situation worse.
* Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Israeli citizens and they won't even say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
* Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
* Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
*ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
Now here's a bullet point that you didn't mention:
* Ubiquitous healthcare for Americans
Affects Americans right now? -- YES! Was it a clear course of action that will be best for America in the future? -- YES!
At first I read about Verizon throttling their "unlimited data plan" customers and I got concerned.
But then I read that the throttling will NOT affect the majority of customers who are paying over the odds for an unlimited data plan that they don't actually need. That's good. So long as they're not affected, things are okay. Please go ahead with your plans, Verizon!
I don't think WaveGlider is a submersible. It's a surface-vessel, with solar panels!, and with energy-generating fins in its keel. Wikipedia explains: "The Wave Glider is composed of two parts: the float is roughly the size and shape of a surfboard and stays at the surface; the sub has wings and hangs 6 meters below on an umbilical tether"
http://imgur.com/nfdHsn2
So yes, it's impressive as heck that the WaveGlider survived a typhoon. The float part of it will be tossed around like crazy on top of the waves. It will stay tethered to the float part underwater. The tether will be yanked every which way.
I've never come across a fair, statistically meaningful measure of how "good" a teacher is.
It looks like it's impossible for Apple to issue an honest denial, because...
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/...
there are actually back-doors specifically built into iOS devices -- back doors not used by any Apple software on the device, not usable by genius-bar or any user-benefitting scenario, but still that make it possible for "someone" to get at a lot of the personal data.
Quote: "Why do we need a packet-sniffer running on 600 million personal iOS devices?"
Quote: "com.apple.mobile_file_relay - exposes much personal data - very intentionally placed and intended to dump data from the device by request"
Quote: "Apple has worked hard to ensure that Apple can access data on behalf of law enforcement.
I think the reason "anything can be picked apart" is because Apple DO create backdoors for the benefit of government, but for PR purposes they want to appear to deny it.
This runs into the problem of cluck-bait... Stupid zero-content fluff pieces but with headlines that entice you in (e.g. Upworthy, HuffingtonPost) but then you discover that they're stupid. If I had to pay even 1c before seeing the content (and discovering that I'd been duped) then I'd start to get angry, and start to refuse to pay for more sites. Even on legit sites like BBC News, by "internet attention span" is satisfied by about half way through the article, so something long enough to be a good preview is ling enough for me not to need to pay.
I seem to recall reading something like 1% of customers generating 98% of the in-app purchases, as a general trend across the industry. Can't remember where I read it though.
so you basically want apple to make a flip phone.
No not at all! Where did you get that from? (and actually, even back in 2002 I remember having WAP and IMAP on my phone, so they also divulged my location).
What I want is (1) for Apple to continue to be truthful, (2) for the "don't let app/webpage feature use my location" to be trustworthy with respect to apps and to all the various ways that location can be deduced (bluetooth, wifi, cellular, GPS), and (3) for COMPLETE disclosure of the other times when the iOS system keeps a record of those location-related metadata things, and of all the times when the iOS system uploads or indirectly implies information from these.
I'm not sure if this is a moving goalposts or no real scotsman issue. How can apple issue a denial that would satisfy people like you? Surely anything would be picked apart.
"Whenever you access an online service, that online service will know your approximate geographical location to city level, and also the intervening network infrastructure (cellphone towers &c.) will know. This is common to ALL mobile devices. Also, whenever your device is set to connect to networks (cellphone, wifi, bluetooth, ...) then those networks also know your approximate location. Again, this is common to all mobile devices.
Beyond that, your iPhone internally knows your location through various means (GPS, cellular triangulation, wifi base station names). However, all location information from these sources (including information which might indirectly allow your approximation location to be deduced) is UNAVAILABLE to apps unless you specifically opt to allow them to have the information. Therefore, apps are unable to pass the information on to any third party.
Other than apps, your iPhone also includes system software. If you chose the following settings [...] then the iPhone keeps no historical logs of location information or metadata. Additionally, the iPhone itself never allows any location data to leave the iPhone, except when you connect it to a computer via iTunes."
I don't know about everyone else, but this would satisfy me!
The nature of this particular question seems very naive. I suppose that you haven't been shot at much!
It's a semantic question to determine if your numbers for "shot at city" and "into city" are referring to the same thing, or to different things.
The [200] number comes from a few sources.
It sounds like, from what you say, the only number comparison that gives a meaningful idea of IronDome effectiveness is "count of audible intercepts" vs "count of audible impacts". All other numbers are incomensurable.
[You have heard+felt 4-5 rockets hit the ground] and [have heard] above 150 [aerial intercepts] by now
Those are the key numbers. You indicated that you believe that all of the aerial intercepts were of rockets that were going to head into your city. And you believe that the 4-5 rockets on the ground were in the city (which we can assume IronDome also tried to hit). Therefore, from your numbers, and based on your beliefs, you think IronDome is able to hit 97% of rockets.
You also indicated that you think your hearing of aerial intercepts isn't as effective as your hearing of ground impacts. Therefore the number might be higher than 97%.
The Israeli army says the number is slightly lower than 90%, so your numbers are in the same ballpark - http://thebulletin.org/iron-do...
In the frustrating interview with NPR, the expert said "5% or lower". But it wasn't clear, and Siegel didn't think to ask, whether this was referring to the chance of stopping a rocket that they intended to stop (which is what you're measuring), or to the chance that a single interceptor would stop a single rocket. I can't tell whether IronDome fires multiple intercepts per incoming rocket or just one.