I think this has no problems with Object.underground.found.stuff.typical -- the problem is that there is no general handler for Object.underground.found.stuff.atypical -- which is what they've got here.
I'm no engineer but I'm guessing the machine was never meant to bore through solid rock like that. The procedure for rock is still drill-and-blast.
Actually; it CAN break up solid rock. The current guess is that the rock isn't staying stationary, but is instead spinning, preventing the drill from gaining purchase. By the time they're done, maybe it'll be a perfect cylinder:)
Because the only right that the piece of paper the stock is printed on allows you to have is voting. And you get to vote regardless of whether you own the stock or your charity does. But "donating" to charity creates a tax write off.
Thanks; the other proofs and diatribes were all moderated -1 for some reason. Hopefully this will end the thread, as well as illustrate the issues involved with the actual article and the original comment I was replying to:)
Yeah; what us old timers are scratching our heads about is this:
All the things you've suggested have been on the internet for years. There have even been ethernet RS232 adapters the size of your little finger for around 10 years (yes, they used a hacked IPv4 TCP stack).
About the only thing that's changed is miniaturization and wireless connectivity; now instead of your coffee maker being wired through a com port adapter to an ethernet cable that then connects to a central computer that controls its functions (and can be controlled itself via remote shell or web interface), you have the entire computer embedded inside the coffee maker with WiFi access, so all it needs is an access point and an electrical outlet.
There were no "things" on the internet until recently, there were only computers.
Ah; so the difference is that we've stopped calling them computers and are now calling them things?
I used to be able to dispense items from a vending machine over the internet back in, hmm... around 1995. Sure, the controller was a microcomputer hooked up to a PIC controller via the COM port, but that vending machine was still on the internet. I think there was an earlier one where someone created a terminal interface for a vending machine so that it was directly hooked up to the mainframe.
Oh, and remember network printers? I've been able to print to a postscript printer over the internet since 1991.
I'm sure I could go on if I thought about it enough....
The point is that in many places it is not legal to put in a phone "in jail" in the first place. So if they want to get rid of physical SIM card they need a non-physical way of changing the phone to a different provider on the fly.
But that's not the point... that's the result. The question is: Why do they want to get rid of a non-programmable security chip in the first place? This means that every device shipped could be reflashed with a custom keyset anywhere along the distribution path, or even after final sale. What with China slipping wifi-enabled attack bots into regular home appliances (like toasters and irons) delivered to Russia, it wouldn't be too difficult to totally reconfigure someone's internet of things to a similar end. This reminds me of the wireless "security" cameras that used to broadcast the video signal in the clear for anyone to view.
If I purchase two UBR-1s at $35,000 a piece I can build a two arm robot for $70,000? I'm mean we're only talking a new roll of duct tape at this point.
What happened to the rest of the unobtanium $400,000 price tag?
Is this the new math the kids keep talking about? What am I missing here?
They switched to cheap commodity parts for the sensors instead of custom building all the parts. That's the big cost savings.
How is giving stock avoiding taxes? Giving away a billion dollars in stock is far more wealth than if he sold the stock and paid the taxes on it. I hate to break this to people but the super rich are not nearly as worried about taxes as you think they are.
Giving stock is avoiding taxes because you avoid the capital gains, and the loss/transfer can be counted against REAL wealth.
You see, stock is actually pretty much worthless when it comes to conversion to every day uses. Its value has no stability, and you can rarely use it to directly purchase things you actually need/want. At the end of the day, stock is just the ability to have a certain percentage of say in how a corporation is run. People speculate on these voting shares, with some people willing to purchase this voting capital in a company not because they're interested in the direction of the company, but because they anticipate someone else might be willing to buy it off of them for a higher price. The last price people are willing to pay to trade these shares is what we usually refer to as "stock value".
If you give all these shares to another entity, you get tax benefits as if all of the shares are worth that value. HOWEVER, if you sold those same shares on the open market, you'd not get that value for every share. As you dumped the shares, the first few would go for around the current valuation, but the more you dump on to the open market, the less demand there is for new shares, and the overall stock value drops. This is how pump and dump stock scams work: you take a stock with a low value, get people speculating on it, pump up the value, and then dump your cheap stock at the high value until it deflates back to the original purchase price. Rinse, repeat.
As a result, you get someone like Zuckerberg transferring almost $1billion of his stock to his charity, sheltering it from taxation while at the same time giving him a HUGE tax break similar to if he had donated his personal wealth to the charity -- and that stock would be worth nowhere near that much if he had instead sold it on the open market and donated the money to the same charity.
This is one of the reasons that the super rich aren't worried about taxes -- they have enough of these sorts of tax dodges to work with that they have no need to worry.
That's interesting too... I suspect that your tech is likely correct and my sources aren't... let's see if I can pull up some takeaparts and isolate how these things are actually wired in in various models. Feel free to beat me to the punch.
My HP doesn't have a built in camera. My mics are filled with caulking. When I need either, I plug in external.
But that's only the mics you know about. One of those things that looks like a capacitor on your motherboard is actually a secret NSA microphone. It's wired in with one of the inside-layer traces on the motherboard so no one has detected it yet.
...and then there's the ultrasonic emitter built right into the SoC with the baked-in communications and execution firmware....
Weren't people claiming macbook camera light indicator was on the same power source as the camera itself and that it was thus impossible to turn on the camera without turning on the light indicator? That's obviously not the case. Glad I stuck a postit in front of the lens. And people were calling me paranoid.
That's the 2009+ Macbooks; the older ones did it all in software.
I disagree, and will continue to unless you can provide a proof. An infinitely repeating number approaches the next value, and can be treated as equivalent for all intents and purposes, but the values are not strictly the same. I do agree about your actual argument however (assumptions, concepts, meaning of a decimal numeral, etc.).
Look at the series 0/infinity, 1/infinity, 2/infinity etc. -- these values, in our decimal notation, are all 0. However, when found in the middle of a calculation, multiplied by an equal infinitely large number, you'll get the base values, not 0.
And yes, there are proofs that resolve this, but nobody's given one yet. Just disagreeing (especially as AC) demonstrates precisely 1/infinity.
Oh yes, and an alternative is to argue that 3/9 is in fact equivalent to 0.4 -- but 0.4 * 3 = 1.2, not 1. Or, you could argue that 3/9 is always 1/3 and has no decimal representation, as infinite sequences aren't actually representable (at which point sequences like pi become a bit of an issue, as they have no known finite representation in any number base -- that we know of).
3/9 is 0.3* in decimal, which is an infinitely repeating 3. Add 3 of those together, you get an infinitely repeating 9, which, while it approaches 1 using concrete values, is not precisely 1, for the standard definition of 1. However, using approximate computing or general notation, they're the same for all intents and purposes.
This gets even more interesting when you use a different base such as binary, that doesn't have the same issues with notational conversion as base 10. Base 12 is also useful here.
In my original comment, I was pointing out that we're already teaching partial answers, and we're also already doing approximate computing. Doing both intentionally though is a different matter altogether.
Time for a few mathematicians to completely refute what I said; it's mostly a thought experiment after all -- hence the "do we care?"
Ah yes; that is definitely false. The original message was pointing out that the 24% figure, if it includes all the devices that can't install iOS7, indicates that very few people are still using old hardware. I guess with iPhones this makes sense, as Apple has a trade-in discount policy.
Other stats (like browsing or iOS application analytics) bear out the fact that the Apple figures are INSTALLED numbers. They are ADOPTION rates, not "possible to adopt" rates.
Er, that's mathematically impossible. 74% of all iOS devices ever sold aren't iOS 7 compatible. So, either the parent is right, or I am... but you're not right in your conclusion. The other stats may point out the adoption rate for people who use those apps on non-jailbroken devices, but that's about it. Usage stats don't reflect adoption rates, they reflect usage rates. Totally different thing, and implies that people who keep their software up to date... keep their software up to date.
Nearly every event mentions iOS 7 adoption, which now tops 76% of all iOS users
-- I've got 3 devices that can't even run iOS 7 -- with the HUGE number of older iPhones, iPod Touches and 1st Gen iPads out there, this stat means that less than 24% of those devices still in use are these older models -- significantly less, as people who are jailbreaking with more recent models are still sitting on iOS 6 as well.
As far as that other bit, you have to have your device set up to automatically download and install updates to the device I think; I've got devices with WiFi enabled, and they still are set to ask if I want to install updates when I physically connect them to a host computer.
It doesn't really matter if you've got tenure if you can't get the grant money to hire graduate students to do your research, and if your institution is actively encouraged to pursue studies that diverge from what your preliminary findings hint might be the real answer.
What ends up happening is that yes, you've still got tenure, and you end up getting saddled with a bunch of introductory first-year classes and no research funding or equipment. You also get your TA budget cut.
Tenure only means they aren't able to fire you without probable cause.
Plus, there's the huge number of people who do research specifically to get that coveted tenure at an institution -- and many (most?) will have no problem doing some "suggested" research to get to that position where they can start doing the research they actually want to do. Of course, there are usually fewer tenure slots than there are tenure track positions, so the result is that you get significantly more "suggested" research being done than hands-off objective research.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if you've got a tenured position if the government cuts off funding to your university. They'll find ways (like some of the ones mentioned above) to get you to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Upon further investigation they've determined the object has a hatch. The plan to spend the next couple of seasons trying top open it.
They're not not the only ones in the tunnel...and they all know it!
Is that an Orrin Hatch or a Richard Hatch? While the second keeps popping up in annoying places, the first is going to be harder to shift.
I think this has no problems with Object.underground.found.stuff.typical -- the problem is that there is no general handler for Object.underground.found.stuff.atypical -- which is what they've got here.
I'm no engineer but I'm guessing the machine was never meant to bore through solid rock like that. The procedure for rock is still drill-and-blast.
Actually; it CAN break up solid rock. The current guess is that the rock isn't staying stationary, but is instead spinning, preventing the drill from gaining purchase. By the time they're done, maybe it'll be a perfect cylinder :)
How is giving stock avoiding taxes?
Because the only right that the piece of paper the stock is printed on allows you to have is voting. And you get to vote regardless of whether you own the stock or your charity does. But "donating" to charity creates a tax write off.
Bingo!
Thanks; the other proofs and diatribes were all moderated -1 for some reason. Hopefully this will end the thread, as well as illustrate the issues involved with the actual article and the original comment I was replying to :)
Yeah; what us old timers are scratching our heads about is this:
All the things you've suggested have been on the internet for years. There have even been ethernet RS232 adapters the size of your little finger for around 10 years (yes, they used a hacked IPv4 TCP stack).
About the only thing that's changed is miniaturization and wireless connectivity; now instead of your coffee maker being wired through a com port adapter to an ethernet cable that then connects to a central computer that controls its functions (and can be controlled itself via remote shell or web interface), you have the entire computer embedded inside the coffee maker with WiFi access, so all it needs is an access point and an electrical outlet.
There were no "things" on the internet until recently, there were only computers.
Ah; so the difference is that we've stopped calling them computers and are now calling them things?
I used to be able to dispense items from a vending machine over the internet back in, hmm... around 1995. Sure, the controller was a microcomputer hooked up to a PIC controller via the COM port, but that vending machine was still on the internet. I think there was an earlier one where someone created a terminal interface for a vending machine so that it was directly hooked up to the mainframe.
Oh, and remember network printers? I've been able to print to a postscript printer over the internet since 1991.
I'm sure I could go on if I thought about it enough....
The point is that in many places it is not legal to put in a phone "in jail" in the first place. So if they want to get rid of physical SIM card they need a non-physical way of changing the phone to a different provider on the fly.
But that's not the point... that's the result. The question is: Why do they want to get rid of a non-programmable security chip in the first place? This means that every device shipped could be reflashed with a custom keyset anywhere along the distribution path, or even after final sale. What with China slipping wifi-enabled attack bots into regular home appliances (like toasters and irons) delivered to Russia, it wouldn't be too difficult to totally reconfigure someone's internet of things to a similar end. This reminds me of the wireless "security" cameras that used to broadcast the video signal in the clear for anyone to view.
This... right on the heels of Embedded cameras that can spy without lighting up due to the same switch from "what you have" to "what you know (which can be reprogrammed)."
So...
If I purchase two UBR-1s at $35,000 a piece I can build a two arm robot for $70,000? I'm mean we're only talking a new roll of duct tape at this point.
What happened to the rest of the unobtanium $400,000 price tag?
Is this the new math the kids keep talking about? What am I missing here?
They switched to cheap commodity parts for the sensors instead of custom building all the parts. That's the big cost savings.
Only needs to waive one arm to keep kids off lawn.
They already waived one arm; that's why they've only got one now....
I think you missed it; in this point in the discussion, the proper sentence should be...
"You can already buy one cheaper armed robot...."
I'm holding out for fully armed mechas for $199....
How is giving stock avoiding taxes? Giving away a billion dollars in stock is far more wealth than if he sold the stock and paid the taxes on it. I hate to break this to people but the super rich are not nearly as worried about taxes as you think they are.
Giving stock is avoiding taxes because you avoid the capital gains, and the loss/transfer can be counted against REAL wealth.
You see, stock is actually pretty much worthless when it comes to conversion to every day uses. Its value has no stability, and you can rarely use it to directly purchase things you actually need/want. At the end of the day, stock is just the ability to have a certain percentage of say in how a corporation is run. People speculate on these voting shares, with some people willing to purchase this voting capital in a company not because they're interested in the direction of the company, but because they anticipate someone else might be willing to buy it off of them for a higher price. The last price people are willing to pay to trade these shares is what we usually refer to as "stock value".
If you give all these shares to another entity, you get tax benefits as if all of the shares are worth that value. HOWEVER, if you sold those same shares on the open market, you'd not get that value for every share. As you dumped the shares, the first few would go for around the current valuation, but the more you dump on to the open market, the less demand there is for new shares, and the overall stock value drops. This is how pump and dump stock scams work: you take a stock with a low value, get people speculating on it, pump up the value, and then dump your cheap stock at the high value until it deflates back to the original purchase price. Rinse, repeat.
As a result, you get someone like Zuckerberg transferring almost $1billion of his stock to his charity, sheltering it from taxation while at the same time giving him a HUGE tax break similar to if he had donated his personal wealth to the charity -- and that stock would be worth nowhere near that much if he had instead sold it on the open market and donated the money to the same charity.
This is one of the reasons that the super rich aren't worried about taxes -- they have enough of these sorts of tax dodges to work with that they have no need to worry.
That's interesting too... I suspect that your tech is likely correct and my sources aren't... let's see if I can pull up some takeaparts and isolate how these things are actually wired in in various models. Feel free to beat me to the punch.
I'm not... I just don't like people combatting faulty logic with "you're wrong because you're an idiot" or similar illogic.
These are two solid and one not solid but still logical sources that show what's actually happening. Well done :)
My HP doesn't have a built in camera. My mics are filled with caulking. When I need either, I plug in external.
But that's only the mics you know about. One of those things that looks like a capacitor on your motherboard is actually a secret NSA microphone. It's wired in with one of the inside-layer traces on the motherboard so no one has detected it yet.
...and then there's the ultrasonic emitter built right into the SoC with the baked-in communications and execution firmware....
Weren't people claiming macbook camera light indicator was on the same power source as the camera itself and that it was thus impossible to turn on the camera without turning on the light indicator? That's obviously not the case. Glad I stuck a postit in front of the lens. And people were calling me paranoid.
That's the 2009+ Macbooks; the older ones did it all in software.
I disagree, and will continue to unless you can provide a proof. An infinitely repeating number approaches the next value, and can be treated as equivalent for all intents and purposes, but the values are not strictly the same. I do agree about your actual argument however (assumptions, concepts, meaning of a decimal numeral, etc.).
Look at the series 0/infinity, 1/infinity, 2/infinity etc. -- these values, in our decimal notation, are all 0. However, when found in the middle of a calculation, multiplied by an equal infinitely large number, you'll get the base values, not 0.
And yes, there are proofs that resolve this, but nobody's given one yet. Just disagreeing (especially as AC) demonstrates precisely 1/infinity.
Oh yes, and an alternative is to argue that 3/9 is in fact equivalent to 0.4 -- but 0.4 * 3 = 1.2, not 1. Or, you could argue that 3/9 is always 1/3 and has no decimal representation, as infinite sequences aren't actually representable (at which point sequences like pi become a bit of an issue, as they have no known finite representation in any number base -- that we know of).
3/9 is 0.3* in decimal, which is an infinitely repeating 3. Add 3 of those together, you get an infinitely repeating 9, which, while it approaches 1 using concrete values, is not precisely 1, for the standard definition of 1. However, using approximate computing or general notation, they're the same for all intents and purposes.
This gets even more interesting when you use a different base such as binary, that doesn't have the same issues with notational conversion as base 10. Base 12 is also useful here.
In my original comment, I was pointing out that we're already teaching partial answers, and we're also already doing approximate computing. Doing both intentionally though is a different matter altogether.
Time for a few mathematicians to completely refute what I said; it's mostly a thought experiment after all -- hence the "do we care?"
We're teaching our kids that 2+2 equals whatever they feel it is equal to, as long as they are happy. What do we need with accuracy anymore?
Indeed... what's 3/9 + 3/9 + 3/9 after all? Does it approach 1, or is it actually 1? Do we care? Are we happy?
Ah yes; that is definitely false. The original message was pointing out that the 24% figure, if it includes all the devices that can't install iOS7, indicates that very few people are still using old hardware. I guess with iPhones this makes sense, as Apple has a trade-in discount policy.
Other stats (like browsing or iOS application analytics) bear out the fact that the Apple figures are INSTALLED numbers. They are ADOPTION rates, not "possible to adopt" rates.
Er, that's mathematically impossible. 74% of all iOS devices ever sold aren't iOS 7 compatible. So, either the parent is right, or I am... but you're not right in your conclusion. The other stats may point out the adoption rate for people who use those apps on non-jailbroken devices, but that's about it. Usage stats don't reflect adoption rates, they reflect usage rates. Totally different thing, and implies that people who keep their software up to date... keep their software up to date.
Along with
Nearly every event mentions iOS 7 adoption, which now tops 76% of all iOS users
-- I've got 3 devices that can't even run iOS 7 -- with the HUGE number of older iPhones, iPod Touches and 1st Gen iPads out there, this stat means that less than 24% of those devices still in use are these older models -- significantly less, as people who are jailbreaking with more recent models are still sitting on iOS 6 as well.
As far as that other bit, you have to have your device set up to automatically download and install updates to the device I think; I've got devices with WiFi enabled, and they still are set to ask if I want to install updates when I physically connect them to a host computer.
How it works, or how it's supposed to work?
It doesn't really matter if you've got tenure if you can't get the grant money to hire graduate students to do your research, and if your institution is actively encouraged to pursue studies that diverge from what your preliminary findings hint might be the real answer.
What ends up happening is that yes, you've still got tenure, and you end up getting saddled with a bunch of introductory first-year classes and no research funding or equipment. You also get your TA budget cut.
Tenure only means they aren't able to fire you without probable cause.
Plus, there's the huge number of people who do research specifically to get that coveted tenure at an institution -- and many (most?) will have no problem doing some "suggested" research to get to that position where they can start doing the research they actually want to do. Of course, there are usually fewer tenure slots than there are tenure track positions, so the result is that you get significantly more "suggested" research being done than hands-off objective research.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if you've got a tenured position if the government cuts off funding to your university. They'll find ways (like some of the ones mentioned above) to get you to leave.