I doubt there's some sort of conspiracy to cover up the existence of aliens. If they're discovered it will be like this
1) Astronomers find an anomalous thing - e.g a signal 2) They publish 3) Other groups take their research and analyse it 4) At some point someone will say "We think this is not a natural signal but rather the result of an extra terrestrial intelligence 5) An absolute shit storm will break out with people arguing for and against and doing more observations 6) At some point the idea that it's an ETI will become something most people believe. Then again if we find aliens this way the odds are they'll be so far away that it's not practical to communicate with them over any sort of reasonable time scale.
E.g. the signal from the first pulsar found was called 'the LGM signal', a slightly jokey reference to the possibility it was Little Green Men.
The first pulsar was observed on November 28, 1967, by Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Antony Hewish. They observed pulses separated by 1.33 seconds that originated from the same location on the sky, and kept to sidereal time. In looking for explanations for the pulses, the short period of the pulses eliminated most astrophysical sources of radiation, such as stars, and since the pulses followed sidereal time, it could not be man-made radio frequency interference. When observations with another telescope confirmed the emission, it eliminated any sort of instrumental effects. At this point, Bell Burnell said of herself and Hewish that "we did not really believe that we had picked up signals from another civilization, but obviously the idea had crossed our minds and we had no proof that it was an entirely natural radio emission. It is an interesting problem-if one thinks one may have detected life elsewhere in the universe, how does one announce the results responsibly?" Even so, they nicknamed the signal LGM-1, for "little green men" (a playful name for intelligent beings of extraterrestrial origin). It was not until a second pulsating source was discovered in a different part of the sky that the "LGM hypothesis" was entirely abandoned. Their pulsar was later dubbed CP 1919, and is now known by a number of designators including PSR 1919+21 and PSR J1921+2153. Although CP 1919 emits in radio wavelengths, pulsars have subsequently been found to emit in visible light, X-ray, and gamma ray wavelengths.
There's no evidence that any of the steps 1) to 3) are being suppressed. And anyone can try to do any of those steps. It's just that for 4) they need to convince people they're right and it's not something natural, i.e. they need to survive the shitstorm that would happen in step 5)
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina's adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
They do say
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were "asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office," in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were "allowed to vote using a provisional ballot." Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square 161, p <.001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identifi- cation were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit noncitizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses
I.e. voter ID laws don't work if by voter ID you mean "driving license" and the state gives out driving licenses to non citizens which are indistinguishable from the ones they hand out to citizens. Which is not impossible. E.g.
The law provides driver's licenses to people who filed Colorado state income taxes in the previous year and can show proof of current state residence, or who have an Individual Taxpayer ID and proof of 24 months of state residency, with a passport, consular ID, or military ID. The license will state "Not valid for federal identification, voting, or public benefits purposes."
You can't tell which seemingly wacky ideas are going to turn out to be right, and nearly all ideas that turn out to be great breakthroughs start out sounding like terrible ideas. So if you want a culture that innovates, you can't have a culture where you allow the concept of heresy-if you allow the concept at all, it tends to spread. When we move from strenuous debate about ideas to casting the people behind the ideas as heretics, we gradually stop debate on all controversial ideas.
This is uncomfortable, but it's possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. Of course we can and should say that ideas are mistaken, but we can't just call the person a heretic. We need to debate the actual idea.
Political correctness often comes from a good place-I think we should all be willing to make accommodations to treat others well. But too often it ends up being used as a club for something orthogonal to protecting actual victims. The best ideas are barely possible to express at all, and if you're constantly thinking about how everything you say might be misinterpreted, you won't let the best ideas get past the fragment stage.
I don't know who Satoshi is, but I'm skeptical that he, she, or they would have been able to come up with the idea for bitcoin immersed in the current culture of San Francisco-it would have seemed too crazy and too dangerous, with too many ways to go wrong. If SpaceX started in San Francisco in 2017, I assume they would have been attacked for focusing on problems of the 1%, or for doing something the government had already decided was too hard. I can picture Galileo looking up at the sky and whispering "E pur si muove" here today.
I.e. what the SJWs who infest Google and FB (and Reddit, whose board Altman was on) are scared of is that the people who have haven't drunk the Koolaid and may - horror of horrors - fund people who want to start companies who challenge their control of The Narrative.
Odd really, I always thought Altman's politics were like those of the average Redditor. However read that blog post and it's clear they're not. The dude is OK.
Also The Guardian mentioned him negatively in a hit piece on Thiel:
If you're interested in the end of the world, you're interested in New Zealand. If you're interested in how our current cultural anxieties - climate catastrophe, decline of transatlantic political orders, resurgent nuclear terror - manifest themselves in apocalyptic visions, you're interested in the place occupied by this distant archipelago of apparent peace and stability against the roiling unease of the day.
If you're interested in the end of the world, you would have been interested, soon after Donald Trump's election as US president, to read a New York Times headline stating that Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who co-founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, considered New Zealand to be "the Future". Because if you are in any serious way concerned about the future, you're also concerned about Thiel, a canary in capitalism's coal mine who also happens to have profited lavishly from his stake in the mining concern itself.
Thiel is in one sense a caricature of outsized villainy: he was the only major Silicon Valley figure to put his weight behind the Trump presidential campaign; he vengefully bankrupted a website because he didn't like how they wrote about him; he is known for his pu
It's also hypocritical given they'd earlier criticised people for not taking down Jennifer Lawrence's nudes. Jezebel and Gawker were both owned by Gawker Media.
One company involved in the test told the Wall Street Journal that for over 80 percent of the 911 calls where Google's system was used, the tech giant's location data were more accurate than what wireless carriers provided. The company, RapidSOS, also said that while carrier data location estimates had, on average, a radius of around 522 feet, Google's data gave estimates with radii around 121 feet. Google's data also arrived more quickly than carrier data typically did.
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 911. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 911 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.
522 feet is 159m. 121 feet is 36m. It seems a bit implausible that if the average error for operator location is 159m that they're actually implementing E911 properly. Of course most people don't know or care about that, and neither do T Mobile. Still why not ask the networks why their location service is so much worse than it's supposed to be and why it took them from 1996 until now to get to that point?
Disclaimer : when visiting the US I used to use a T Mobile $30 Walmart plan SIM in my phone, until T Mobile discontinued it. I don't think Binge On should be illegal. John Legere is cringe inducing though, and that's why he deserves some reporter asking him why E911 works so poorly after such a long time. Also it'd be interesting to see if he actually knows about technical details like this.
I was being facetious about it being 'a cunning NSA ruse'. It's just phone companies trying to improve their profitability by selling disposable phones and appeal to idiot tech reviewers.
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 911. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 911 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.
The order also laid out milestones for implementing wireless location services. Many carriers requested waivers of the milestones, and the FCC granted many of them. By mid-2005, implementation of Phase II was generally underway, limited by the complexity of coordination required from wireless and wireline carriers, PSAPs, and other affected government agencies; and by the limited funding available to local agencies which needed to convert PSAP equipment to display location data (usually on computerized maps).
In July 2011, the FCC announced a proposed rule requiring that after an eight-year implementation period, at some yet-to-be-determined date in 2019, wireless carriers will be required to meet more stringent location accuracy requirements. If enacted, this rule would require both "handset based" and "network based" location techniques to meet the same accuracy standard, regardless of the underlying technology used. The rule is likely to have no effect as all major carriers will have already achieved over 85% GPS chipset penetration, and are thus able to meet the standard regardless of their 'network based' location capabilities.[7]
However according to TFA
One company involved in the test told the Wall Street Journal that for over 80 percent of the 911 calls where Google's system was used, the tech giant's location data were more accurate than what wireless carriers provided. The company, RapidSOS, also said that while carrier data location estimates had, on average, a radius of around 522 feet, Google's data gave estimates with radii around 121 feet. Google's data also arrived more quickly than carrier data typically did.
So Google is better at tracking people than say T-Mobile. Also government mandates don't actually work very well.
Remember the days when the left were telling us the CIA/FBI/NSA were "Like totally something out of 1984, dude. They're coming for our weed and torrents and pretty soon we'll be living in a hellish dystopia. Edward Snowden is a hero for exposing their unconstitutional spying, and the Russians were great for giving him sanctuary out of the kindness of their hearts and in now way because they want his info. The 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back from Mitt Romney because everyone knows that Putin is our friend now. How dare you defend the CIA/NSA etc? Haven't you heard about COINTELPRO you bootlicker?".
It must have been so long ago, because now it's all changed. The FBI, CIA and NSA are all heroic for protecting us from Russian shills, you should check under the bed for Russians each night and Putin is Public Enemy Number 1 and anyone who questions any of that is clearly a Putin Shill, just like Trump.
Though, oddly enough according to the left Snowden is still heroic whistleblower, and totally not a Russian agent. And Assange has clearly been framed by the CIA and isn't just a fugitive rapist and nutcase. And Mitt Romney is clearly still wrong about Russia being a strategic threat, even though he actually agrees with the left.
Cowpox is to smallpox as Christianity is to {Islam, Communism, White Nationalism, other noxious belief systems which are incompatible with Christianity}. Ie it doesn't do much harm on its own and immunizes you against something much nastier.
So non removable batteries were a cunning NSA ruse?
Inconceivable! I was told non removable batteries were because users wanted phones that were so thin and so waterproof so they could use them in a pinch to shave in the shower and didn't care about battery life or longevity because they wanted to commit to spending $1000 on a new one in a year and half's time even though it didn't have a headphone port, or, the way things are going a speaker, microphone and display.
Actually the Visitors in V - the original one not the horrid remake - are more or less a 30's expansionist fascist dictatorship IN SPACE
"Once we've got starships we need a first strike on those mammalian bastards from Earth in order to expand the glory of the empire. The Leader demands it!
Also we're going to eat them after we've won, because we're complete and utter bastards"
I dunno, I think I'd have more cognitive dissonance pretending to approve of SJW nonsense at work in order to not get fired than debating Reactosphere types. Ironically the Reactosphere is more tolerant of diversity than the SJWs.
Write a heartfelt but rather naive memo explaining that you value diversity but want your company to enhance it in ways that don't 'incentivize illegal discrimination'.
Get promptly fired by your Ivy League Communist wannabe management.
Go on the paid speaker circuit and start a Patreon. Sue your company.
Meet blonde alt right hottie with rich conservative parents on the paid speaker circuit.
"Value her diversity" HARD. Start a family and write a book.
It beats slogging away knocking out boilerplate code in a single sex environment.
It's interesting in the refugee crisis in Europe how the fact that the refugees were young men affected the way men and women reacted to the idea of letting them in.
Arguably religions are viruses of the mind. When they infect you they tell you to proselytize, i.e. infect other people.
Of course like biological viruses are not equally lethal, religions are not equally bad for you. In fact some resemble cowpox, and some resemble smallpox.
Donald Trump got elected because as dislikable he is he's less dislikable than Hillary Clinton. And having a bunch of even more dislikable journalists on her side didn't do her any favours.
I reckon the fact that all the money celebs and media were on one side made people think they were being railroaded.
If the media is 60:40 in favour of one side, it looks like one side is ahead. If it's 70:30 it looks like one side is more ahead. If it's 94:06 it starts to look dubious.
It's like those elections in a dictatorship where the dictator gets 99% of the vote. Everyone knows they're fake.
I.e. a plurality on one side looks like a consensus. Unanimity one side looks like the system is rigged.
Maybe the DNC should funnel some of its vast cash reserves to conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro through a law firm in order to get the media balance back to 90:10 and see if that makes people start believing them again.
Oh I dunno. A few people were very anti Damore and used the ingenious strategy of "I have an excellent argument as to why his memo was unacceptable but I've posted it in the past, people didn't accept it so I refuse to rehash it".
It's the Fermat's Margin Note strategy for winning - or at least not losing - slashdot arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt there's some sort of conspiracy to cover up the existence of aliens. If they're discovered it will be like this
1) Astronomers find an anomalous thing - e.g a signal
2) They publish
3) Other groups take their research and analyse it
4) At some point someone will say "We think this is not a natural signal but rather the result of an extra terrestrial intelligence
5) An absolute shit storm will break out with people arguing for and against and doing more observations
6) At some point the idea that it's an ETI will become something most people believe. Then again if we find aliens this way the odds are they'll be so far away that it's not practical to communicate with them over any sort of reasonable time scale.
E.g. the signal from the first pulsar found was called 'the LGM signal', a slightly jokey reference to the possibility it was Little Green Men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The first pulsar was observed on November 28, 1967, by Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Antony Hewish. They observed pulses separated by 1.33 seconds that originated from the same location on the sky, and kept to sidereal time. In looking for explanations for the pulses, the short period of the pulses eliminated most astrophysical sources of radiation, such as stars, and since the pulses followed sidereal time, it could not be man-made radio frequency interference. When observations with another telescope confirmed the emission, it eliminated any sort of instrumental effects. At this point, Bell Burnell said of herself and Hewish that "we did not really believe that we had picked up signals from another civilization, but obviously the idea had crossed our minds and we had no proof that it was an entirely natural radio emission. It is an interesting problem-if one thinks one may have detected life elsewhere in the universe, how does one announce the results responsibly?" Even so, they nicknamed the signal LGM-1, for "little green men" (a playful name for intelligent beings of extraterrestrial origin). It was not until a second pulsating source was discovered in a different part of the sky that the "LGM hypothesis" was entirely abandoned. Their pulsar was later dubbed CP 1919, and is now known by a number of designators including PSR 1919+21 and PSR J1921+2153. Although CP 1919 emits in radio wavelengths, pulsars have subsequently been found to emit in visible light, X-ray, and gamma ray wavelengths.
There's no evidence that any of the steps 1) to 3) are being suppressed. And anyone can try to do any of those steps. It's just that for 4) they need to convince people they're right and it's not something natural, i.e. they need to survive the shitstorm that would happen in step 5)
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina's adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
They do say
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
However if you look at their paper
http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...
Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were "asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office," in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were "allowed to vote using a provisional ballot." Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square 161, p < .001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identifi- cation were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit noncitizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses
I.e. voter ID laws don't work if by voter ID you mean "driving license" and the state gives out driving licenses to non citizens which are indistinguishable from the ones they hand out to citizens. Which is not impossible. E.g.
https://immigration.procon.org...
The law provides driver's licenses to people who filed Colorado state income taxes in the previous year and can show proof of current state residence, or who have an Individual Taxpayer ID and proof of 24 months of state residency, with a passport, consular ID, or military ID. The license will state "Not valid for federal identification, voting, or public benefits purposes."
The paper also contains th
If only the people who support this supported voter ID laws.
Networks could use GPS or cell tower triangulation, which is what Google do and what the FCC mandates.
If you're trying to set up a Conservative friendly social media or video sharing service his politics are actually a plus.
The interesting thing is that Sam Altman is probably a libertarian type too.
http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pu...
You can't tell which seemingly wacky ideas are going to turn out to be right, and nearly all ideas that turn out to be great breakthroughs start out sounding like terrible ideas. So if you want a culture that innovates, you can't have a culture where you allow the concept of heresy-if you allow the concept at all, it tends to spread. When we move from strenuous debate about ideas to casting the people behind the ideas as heretics, we gradually stop debate on all controversial ideas.
This is uncomfortable, but it's possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. Of course we can and should say that ideas are mistaken, but we can't just call the person a heretic. We need to debate the actual idea.
Political correctness often comes from a good place-I think we should all be willing to make accommodations to treat others well. But too often it ends up being used as a club for something orthogonal to protecting actual victims. The best ideas are barely possible to express at all, and if you're constantly thinking about how everything you say might be misinterpreted, you won't let the best ideas get past the fragment stage.
I don't know who Satoshi is, but I'm skeptical that he, she, or they would have been able to come up with the idea for bitcoin immersed in the current culture of San Francisco-it would have seemed too crazy and too dangerous, with too many ways to go wrong. If SpaceX started in San Francisco in 2017, I assume they would have been attacked for focusing on problems of the 1%, or for doing something the government had already decided was too hard. I can picture Galileo looking up at the sky and whispering "E pur si muove" here today.
I.e. what the SJWs who infest Google and FB (and Reddit, whose board Altman was on) are scared of is that the people who have haven't drunk the Koolaid and may - horror of horrors - fund people who want to start companies who challenge their control of The Narrative.
Odd really, I always thought Altman's politics were like those of the average Redditor. However read that blog post and it's clear they're not. The dude is OK.
Also The Guardian mentioned him negatively in a hit piece on Thiel :
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
If you're interested in the end of the world, you're interested in New Zealand. If you're interested in how our current cultural anxieties - climate catastrophe, decline of transatlantic political orders, resurgent nuclear terror - manifest themselves in apocalyptic visions, you're interested in the place occupied by this distant archipelago of apparent peace and stability against the roiling unease of the day.
If you're interested in the end of the world, you would have been interested, soon after Donald Trump's election as US president, to read a New York Times headline stating that Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who co-founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, considered New Zealand to be "the Future". Because if you are in any serious way concerned about the future, you're also concerned about Thiel, a canary in capitalism's coal mine who also happens to have profited lavishly from his stake in the mining concern itself.
Thiel is in one sense a caricature of outsized villainy: he was the only major Silicon Valley figure to put his weight behind the Trump presidential campaign; he vengefully bankrupted a website because he didn't like how they wrote about him; he is known for his pu
Ignoring a judge's order to take down a sex tape isn't a very good idea
http://gawker.com/a-judge-told...
It's also hypocritical given they'd earlier criticised people for not taking down Jennifer Lawrence's nudes. Jezebel and Gawker were both owned by Gawker Media.
https://imgur.com/a/ULIA4
Gawker pissed of Thiel by running this
http://gawker.com/335894/peter...
Apparently they outed him when he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia.
So Thiel backed Hogan's lawsuit, and that bankrupted Gawker media.
Someone needs to doorstep that cringe inducing fucker John Legere who runs T-Mobile and ask him why E911 works so poorly
From TFA
One company involved in the test told the Wall Street Journal that for over 80 percent of the 911 calls where Google's system was used, the tech giant's location data were more accurate than what wireless carriers provided. The company, RapidSOS, also said that while carrier data location estimates had, on average, a radius of around 522 feet, Google's data gave estimates with radii around 121 feet. Google's data also arrived more quickly than carrier data typically did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 911. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 911 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.
522 feet is 159m. 121 feet is 36m. It seems a bit implausible that if the average error for operator location is 159m that they're actually implementing E911 properly. Of course most people don't know or care about that, and neither do T Mobile. Still why not ask the networks why their location service is so much worse than it's supposed to be and why it took them from 1996 until now to get to that point?
Disclaimer : when visiting the US I used to use a T Mobile $30 Walmart plan SIM in my phone, until T Mobile discontinued it. I don't think Binge On should be illegal. John Legere is cringe inducing though, and that's why he deserves some reporter asking him why E911 works so poorly after such a long time. Also it'd be interesting to see if he actually knows about technical details like this.
I was being facetious about it being 'a cunning NSA ruse'. It's just phone companies trying to improve their profitability by selling disposable phones and appeal to idiot tech reviewers.
The interesting thing is that in the US there's an FCC mandated location service since 1996.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 911. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 911 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.
The order also laid out milestones for implementing wireless location services. Many carriers requested waivers of the milestones, and the FCC granted many of them. By mid-2005, implementation of Phase II was generally underway, limited by the complexity of coordination required from wireless and wireline carriers, PSAPs, and other affected government agencies; and by the limited funding available to local agencies which needed to convert PSAP equipment to display location data (usually on computerized maps).
In July 2011, the FCC announced a proposed rule requiring that after an eight-year implementation period, at some yet-to-be-determined date in 2019, wireless carriers will be required to meet more stringent location accuracy requirements. If enacted, this rule would require both "handset based" and "network based" location techniques to meet the same accuracy standard, regardless of the underlying technology used. The rule is likely to have no effect as all major carriers will have already achieved over 85% GPS chipset penetration, and are thus able to meet the standard regardless of their 'network based' location capabilities.[7]
However according to TFA
One company involved in the test told the Wall Street Journal that for over 80 percent of the 911 calls where Google's system was used, the tech giant's location data were more accurate than what wireless carriers provided. The company, RapidSOS, also said that while carrier data location estimates had, on average, a radius of around 522 feet, Google's data gave estimates with radii around 121 feet. Google's data also arrived more quickly than carrier data typically did.
So Google is better at tracking people than say T-Mobile. Also government mandates don't actually work very well.
sed, is incapable, of knowing when Shatner, would put a dramatic pause, in.
Remember the days when the left were telling us the CIA/FBI/NSA were "Like totally something out of 1984, dude. They're coming for our weed and torrents and pretty soon we'll be living in a hellish dystopia. Edward Snowden is a hero for exposing their unconstitutional spying, and the Russians were great for giving him sanctuary out of the kindness of their hearts and in now way because they want his info. The 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back from Mitt Romney because everyone knows that Putin is our friend now. How dare you defend the CIA/NSA etc? Haven't you heard about COINTELPRO you bootlicker?".
It must have been so long ago, because now it's all changed. The FBI, CIA and NSA are all heroic for protecting us from Russian shills, you should check under the bed for Russians each night and Putin is Public Enemy Number 1 and anyone who questions any of that is clearly a Putin Shill, just like Trump.
Though, oddly enough according to the left Snowden is still heroic whistleblower, and totally not a Russian agent. And Assange has clearly been framed by the CIA and isn't just a fugitive rapist and nutcase. And Mitt Romney is clearly still wrong about Russia being a strategic threat, even though he actually agrees with the left.
And Trump is a Russian Shill even though US forces under his command have actually killed Russians on a battlefield in Syria
Cowpox is to smallpox as Christianity is to {Islam, Communism, White Nationalism, other noxious belief systems which are incompatible with Christianity}. Ie it doesn't do much harm on its own and immunizes you against something much nastier.
So non removable batteries were a cunning NSA ruse?
Inconceivable! I was told non removable batteries were because users wanted phones that were so thin and so waterproof so they could use them in a pinch to shave in the shower and didn't care about battery life or longevity because they wanted to commit to spending $1000 on a new one in a year and half's time even though it didn't have a headphone port, or, the way things are going a speaker, microphone and display.
Actually the Visitors in V - the original one not the horrid remake - are more or less a 30's expansionist fascist dictatorship IN SPACE
"Once we've got starships we need a first strike on those mammalian bastards from Earth in order to expand the glory of the empire. The Leader demands it!
Also we're going to eat them after we've won, because we're complete and utter bastards"
I loved that shit when I was a kid.
I dunno, I think I'd have more cognitive dissonance pretending to approve of SJW nonsense at work in order to not get fired than debating Reactosphere types. Ironically the Reactosphere is more tolerant of diversity than the SJWs.
On the Alt Right
Write a heartfelt but rather naive memo explaining that you value diversity but want your company to enhance it in ways that don't 'incentivize illegal discrimination'.
Get promptly fired by your Ivy League Communist wannabe management.
Go on the paid speaker circuit and start a Patreon. Sue your company.
Meet blonde alt right hottie with rich conservative parents on the paid speaker circuit.
"Value her diversity" HARD. Start a family and write a book.
It beats slogging away knocking out boilerplate code in a single sex environment.
It's an example, of the the use of the so called Shatnerian, comma. Indicates a pause, for dramatic, purposes.
It's interesting in the refugee crisis in Europe how the fact that the refugees were young men affected the way men and women reacted to the idea of letting them in.
Arguably religions are viruses of the mind. When they infect you they tell you to proselytize, i.e. infect other people.
Of course like biological viruses are not equally lethal, religions are not equally bad for you. In fact some resemble cowpox, and some resemble smallpox.
Donald Trump got elected because as dislikable he is he's less dislikable than Hillary Clinton. And having a bunch of even more dislikable journalists on her side didn't do her any favours.
Please don't use language which is exclusionary and oppressivee to deceased Americans.
Funny how you can't remember any of those one liners.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-y...
I reckon the fact that all the money celebs and media were on one side made people think they were being railroaded.
If the media is 60:40 in favour of one side, it looks like one side is ahead. If it's 70:30 it looks like one side is more ahead. If it's 94:06 it starts to look dubious.
It's like those elections in a dictatorship where the dictator gets 99% of the vote. Everyone knows they're fake.
I.e. a plurality on one side looks like a consensus. Unanimity one side looks like the system is rigged.
Maybe the DNC should funnel some of its vast cash reserves to conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro through a law firm in order to get the media balance back to 90:10 and see if that makes people start believing them again.
Oh I dunno. A few people were very anti Damore and used the ingenious strategy of "I have an excellent argument as to why his memo was unacceptable but I've posted it in the past, people didn't accept it so I refuse to rehash it".
It's the Fermat's Margin Note strategy for winning - or at least not losing - slashdot arguments.