Manning motivation for "exposing" classified documents was not some noble cause, his motivations were simple he wanted people to think he was a super hacker which is how he was caught bragging about his conquests. I have not read any claims or evidence that he knew what was contained in the classified documents he leaked, he was not noble he was just looking for adjuration.
90% of new solution may be, as TFA stated, re-adaption of existing solutions into other fields
But that's not "innovation" in pure sense
Innovation is something that is new
It may be a combination of two old items, like putting tea leafs in a bag made of paper, the result, however, is a brand new thing
That "90%" quote from TFA is akin to replacing "tea" with "coffee" with the outcome of "coffee bag" instead of "tea bag"
Thus, having a software that "innovates" may offer us some "re-application of technologies", but it won't give us new ideas
Then there have only been a few innovations in the history of mankind that are totally unique the rest are derivatives from those very basic innovations. In a pure sense 99% of all advancements are just derivatives from earlier works, going from using a stick to bash your fellow caveman's head in to using your smashing stick as a lever to move rocks is an innovation even though the smashing stick is a lever in both cases.
They are at step one of calculating MMGW which is accurately predicting the temperature trends. In order to quantify man's effect on Global warming they have to be able to isolate the man made contributions and the sum of those must be less then their margin of error. If man's contribution to GW is less then the margin of error they can't isolate everything enough to definitively say that CO2 from man caused the 0.5 degree temperature increase, they simply are not there yet.
Generally speaking, calibration must be done by someone using certified calibrated equipment. If there's any break in the chain, say if the company can't produce records that the calibration equipment wasn't calibrated at the proper interval, then they have no proof of an actual violation. You can require that the company show proof of calibration in court.
And pay the court costs to fight the bogus ticket.
That is still a problem, in an intersection with no sidewalks the stop line is typically before the intersection with no context as to where to stop the correct position would be just before the intersection but the stop lines could be behind that, and the person ticked for running the light.
It sounds like what he is saying is that before you can claim with 100% certainty that MMGW is happening you have to identify all the error in the measurements. If the change is less then the error you can not state that it is a certainty. Observing a 0.5 degree temperature change and having your models predict a 1 or 2 degree change is a problem, it means either the CO2 effects are not as drastic or more likely that there are other variables that need to be corrected for. Determining how much of the warming trend is man made and how much if any is natural is what needs to be done and we can't do that yet.
Like when you make a legal right turn on red, and stop again to make sure it's clear...
What part of "don't stop across or past the line" is so hard to understand? If you're not sure it's clear then don't pull out in the first place. That's the whole point of the lines - so you stop a safe distance back, and when you start moving the people behind you can reasonably expect you to keep moving.
So if you stop before the line then creep forward and make a right turn and are ticked what is your recourse, you have done nothing illegal. But since the video doesn't show you stopping then creeping forward just creeping forward you are fucked.
.You missed the part where the judge said it was unconstitutionally difficult to challenge the fine.
That's true, but irrelevant to the issue of following the law. Don't break the law, and you'll never need to challenge a ticket or worry about whose mercy you are at.
If you're driving so fast towards a traffic light that you can't stop in twenty yards without screeching the tires, you're doing it wrong, yes.
You do know there are are stoplights on rural roads and highways, going from 60 to 0 in twenty yards is impossible about 2gs , the top speed that most cars can handle that fast of a stop without screeching the tires is 35mph it doesn't seen that safe to me to be driving 35 in a 60.
I'm sure they are also against the IRS using computers to catch revenue cheaters, because it gives them an unfair advantage.
Sure they can win, just don't speed. The motorists are just used to breaking the law and not getting caught most of the time.
Did somebody check how many tickets the judge got?
The speed cameras are calibrated once a year by the company that owns the cameras, not by a employee of the state and too infrequently to be considered evidence. The tickets are sent to the vehicle owner irregardless of whether they were driving or not, the owner can only contest the ticket if they can name who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident which is typically 4 to 6 weeks after the incident making it tough to remember who was driving on that day.
Morning sunlight a waste? Tell that to the kids who will be standing on the side of a busy road before daylight waiting for their school bus.
But I do agree that we need to stay on the same time year round.
In the winter they certainly do wait around for the bus in the dark, a simple concept would be to teach the children to not stand so close to the road when waiting for the bus. That seems easier then shifting time twice a year to correct for longer and shorter days.
It absolutely is a performance car but it can not compete on it's performance numbers in it's current price range, when Tesla's price drops, it's range increases, and recharging stations become more common, it certainly will be a force to be reckoned with. Right now it's just not there and the accolades it has received are premature.
Why is it so important to have sunlight in the morning, give me evening sunlight that I can enjoy after work. I don't need sunlight for my morning deuce.
Poverty is a product of environment. Those that rise up out of a bad environment are the exception, not the norm. You should replace your smug arrogance with thankfulness that you were born into a better environment.
So all those professional athletes that are broke after a few years, how do you explain that? same with lottery winners that go broke. In 3rd world countries your cast dictates much of your future but not in modern countries like the US. You get a free High School education and if you have applied yourself in High School you can get a free College education too. I can't think of many people with a College education and an excellent work ethic that are not doing well for them selves, unless they have made other decisions in their life that are preventing them from being successful. The fact is that 95% of people's success depends on them the other 5% is where they came from.
The Tesla model S that can do 0 -60 in 4.4s is their $87k performance line that's the bottom end of 911's in price but no where near the performance. The standard $72k 85 kWh has a 0 - 60 of 5.6 sec, the $62k 60kWh 5.9 and the $52k 40kWh 6.5s. As for the seating the model S can fit two adults and 5 kids an hour long trip in the middle row would with two other adults would be hell. On specs they do not compete for their price point, most Luxury sedans run in the 5 - 6 s range and cost between 30-50k. For instance the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG comes in at $62k and has a 0 - 60 time of 4.2 seconds almost two seconds faster then the 60kWh Tesla Model S that is priced similarly. People are simply not buying the model S for its performance specs they are buying it because it's not a lame electric car and they want an electric car. As I stated earlier the accolades are for making an electric car that doesn't suck which to them is a great feat but I'll probably wait until they can compete in their weight class.
They didn't have to bribe anyone. The Model S is a highly acclaimed car from everyone else's perspective:
Automobile Magazine's 2013 Car of the Year
Motor Trend 2013 Car of the Year.
Popular Science's Auto Grand Award Winner Best of What's New list 2012.
Time Magazine Best 25 Inventions of the Year 2012 award.
Yahoo! Autos 2013 Car of the Year.
CNET Tech Car of the Year for 2012
Green Car Reports' Best Car To Buy 2013
2013 AutoGuide.com Reader’s Choice Car of the Year
Natural Resources Canada 2013 EcoENERGY for Vehicles Awards in the full-size category
Not bad for a car company that didn't exist 10 years ago
Being highly acclaimed and being a success are two very different things. Tesla has a small market they are competing with Porsches, BMW's, Audi's, Lotuses. The Model S is outclasses in every measurable category except fuel cost, and emissions then is comparably priced competitors. It is an environmental feel good sports car and while it is cool the only reason they can compete is people buy it to feel smug. It revived those awards because it was the first electric car that was not lame.
Nobody has the right to put religious symbols on public property. Therefor non-religious people have more rights because they don't even want to.
Nice logic there Tom.
Untrue the Government is forbidden from selecting a state religion, there are no laws that state that religious decorations can't be on public property,"In God We Trust" on money is the most obvious example.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If as the GP stated that all religions and beliefs were invited to decorate then there is no favoritism of religion. They were not choosing one religion over another, they invited everyone to decorate and the atheists decided not to decorate and forced everyone else to take down their decorations.
If N Korea attacks the US or S Korea this is what will happen, first many of the strategic areas will be bombed, armories and SAM sites will be the top priories. Once the Sam sites are knocked out planes and helicopters can fly in and eliminate the artillery which will be N Korea's main attack weapon. The bad thing about artillery is that S Korea can keep tabs on some of the larger pieces but the smaller ones they won't be able to locate until they fire. Even if N Korea had factories S Korea would not be targeting civilians just military targets.
Do you work for Tesla or do you simply own one? Would you have been happy if they ran the car until it was nearly out of power then did the race and had the same result? Before you retort that it would be that same thing as the lotus running out of gas know that the Lotus can be refilled in less then 2 minutes, so it's not an issue when you take Lotus out on a track.
They didn't have a valid point. The car did not run out of power. The show portrayed the car begin pushed, as i if it actually had. That may not have been an explicit lie (i mean, you can push a car that's full of gas, too), but it sure as shit is a misleading, asshole move. The car, fully charged, will get you over 300 miles, as I understand it, though less so at very high speeds. It can fast charge in an hour or so to 80%, which isn't so bad, even long distance. In a pinch you can charge it off a regular power outlet, though that takes a lot longer. The point being that unless you're trying very hard and ignoring the car's very clear warnings, it will not leave you stranded any more than a gas car will.
So your point is that because they didn't actually run the car's batteries down they can't draw attention to the car's batteries running down very quick in track environments and having to wait 40-200x longer then a gas vehicle to recharge it. It would have been nice to see the track day range of the Tesla I'm guessing 60-80 miles but I have yet to see any creditable numbers on it.
They were not required to take diff-eq or real calculus, we were required to take those plus linear algebra, matrix theory, and an Advances Statistics Class. Looking at the currently required curriculum diff-eq, linear algebra, and the Advance Stats Class are all electives now. Our CS curriculum had the same base classes as the EE students, this was because the CS department moved from Arts and Science to Engineering and was grouped with the EE and Comp E. I'm shocked that those classes are not required any more but I work with EEs and Electro-Magnetics all day so my view might be skewed.
Perhaps you had to take easy CS track courses for a semester or two before your GPA was good enough to formally be in CS.
I knew a few failed EEs that went on to 3.5+GPAs in CS. They couldn't handle engineering math.
I don't know what courses were required for your CS department but ours were very heavy in math. Our CS courses were computational mathematics with a side of programming. Mr Maxwell probably tripped them up as long as they could handle linear algebra they could probably get by.
Well-maintained power grid can have transmission loss of around 4% as in the case of South Korea and Japan.
I think this is a practical limit as far as conventional conductors go. Unless the superconductors are ridiculously cost-effective to install and maintain, the benefits will never materialize - i.e. become a game changer.
To put this into perspective, let's try this. A relatively small country like South Korea still has more than ten thousand miles of transmission lines. Say you replace all that and achieve 4% more power.
Since the installed power capacity is around 70GW, that means about 3GW, or about three regular nuclear plants. I highly doubt completely redoing the existing transmission infrastructure with conventional means is possible with the cost of building three nuclear plants, let alone a superconducting one. And I haven't even got to the current limits yet.
This is why, if there's a superconductor breakthrough, I think it'll have more impact on medical uses rather than raw power transmission.
Disclaimer: I work in the electric power industry.
If the superconductor material was effective at normal temperatures and was not too expensive per mile (ROI of 5-10 years) it certainly would. The new cable would simply be patched in on existing lines when those needed to be replaced and used in all new lines. It absolutely would not be cost effective to do a full infrastructure replacement but if lines have to be replaced then you are not incurring extra labor cost for replacement.
Also if more people switch to solar power for their houses the distribution/transmission losses might go down relative to total generated power.
People have been saying that for years but we still don't have wide adoption, the ROI time for solar panels needs to drop significantly if it ever gets to 5 - 10 years then wide adoption will happen until then it is just a novelty.
Slashdot Mirror
Manning motivation for "exposing" classified documents was not some noble cause, his motivations were simple he wanted people to think he was a super hacker which is how he was caught bragging about his conquests. I have not read any claims or evidence that he knew what was contained in the classified documents he leaked, he was not noble he was just looking for adjuration.
90% of new solution may be, as TFA stated, re-adaption of existing solutions into other fields
But that's not "innovation" in pure sense
Innovation is something that is new
It may be a combination of two old items, like putting tea leafs in a bag made of paper, the result, however, is a brand new thing
That "90%" quote from TFA is akin to replacing "tea" with "coffee" with the outcome of "coffee bag" instead of "tea bag"
Thus, having a software that "innovates" may offer us some "re-application of technologies", but it won't give us new ideas
Then there have only been a few innovations in the history of mankind that are totally unique the rest are derivatives from those very basic innovations. In a pure sense 99% of all advancements are just derivatives from earlier works, going from using a stick to bash your fellow caveman's head in to using your smashing stick as a lever to move rocks is an innovation even though the smashing stick is a lever in both cases.
They are at step one of calculating MMGW which is accurately predicting the temperature trends. In order to quantify man's effect on Global warming they have to be able to isolate the man made contributions and the sum of those must be less then their margin of error. If man's contribution to GW is less then the margin of error they can't isolate everything enough to definitively say that CO2 from man caused the 0.5 degree temperature increase, they simply are not there yet.
Generally speaking, calibration must be done by someone using certified calibrated equipment. If there's any break in the chain, say if the company can't produce records that the calibration equipment wasn't calibrated at the proper interval, then they have no proof of an actual violation. You can require that the company show proof of calibration in court.
And pay the court costs to fight the bogus ticket.
That is still a problem, in an intersection with no sidewalks the stop line is typically before the intersection with no context as to where to stop the correct position would be just before the intersection but the stop lines could be behind that, and the person ticked for running the light.
It sounds like what he is saying is that before you can claim with 100% certainty that MMGW is happening you have to identify all the error in the measurements. If the change is less then the error you can not state that it is a certainty. Observing a 0.5 degree temperature change and having your models predict a 1 or 2 degree change is a problem, it means either the CO2 effects are not as drastic or more likely that there are other variables that need to be corrected for. Determining how much of the warming trend is man made and how much if any is natural is what needs to be done and we can't do that yet.
What part of "don't stop across or past the line" is so hard to understand? If you're not sure it's clear then don't pull out in the first place. That's the whole point of the lines - so you stop a safe distance back, and when you start moving the people behind you can reasonably expect you to keep moving.
So if you stop before the line then creep forward and make a right turn and are ticked what is your recourse, you have done nothing illegal. But since the video doesn't show you stopping then creeping forward just creeping forward you are fucked.
That's true, but irrelevant to the issue of following the law. Don't break the law, and you'll never need to challenge a ticket or worry about whose mercy you are at.
If you're driving so fast towards a traffic light that you can't stop in twenty yards without screeching the tires, you're doing it wrong, yes.
You do know there are are stoplights on rural roads and highways, going from 60 to 0 in twenty yards is impossible about 2gs , the top speed that most cars can handle that fast of a stop without screeching the tires is 35mph it doesn't seen that safe to me to be driving 35 in a 60.
You can see through the snow and know exactly where the line is?
" 'It is a scam that motorists can't win.'"
I'm sure they are also against the IRS using computers to catch revenue cheaters, because it gives them an unfair advantage.
Sure they can win, just don't speed. The motorists are just used to breaking the law and not getting caught most of the time.
Did somebody check how many tickets the judge got?
The speed cameras are calibrated once a year by the company that owns the cameras, not by a employee of the state and too infrequently to be considered evidence. The tickets are sent to the vehicle owner irregardless of whether they were driving or not, the owner can only contest the ticket if they can name who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident which is typically 4 to 6 weeks after the incident making it tough to remember who was driving on that day.
Morning sunlight a waste? Tell that to the kids who will be standing on the side of a busy road before daylight waiting for their school bus. But I do agree that we need to stay on the same time year round.
In the winter they certainly do wait around for the bus in the dark, a simple concept would be to teach the children to not stand so close to the road when waiting for the bus. That seems easier then shifting time twice a year to correct for longer and shorter days.
It absolutely is a performance car but it can not compete on it's performance numbers in it's current price range, when Tesla's price drops, it's range increases, and recharging stations become more common, it certainly will be a force to be reckoned with. Right now it's just not there and the accolades it has received are premature.
Why is it so important to have sunlight in the morning, give me evening sunlight that I can enjoy after work. I don't need sunlight for my morning deuce.
Poverty is a product of environment. Those that rise up out of a bad environment are the exception, not the norm. You should replace your smug arrogance with thankfulness that you were born into a better environment.
So all those professional athletes that are broke after a few years, how do you explain that? same with lottery winners that go broke. In 3rd world countries your cast dictates much of your future but not in modern countries like the US. You get a free High School education and if you have applied yourself in High School you can get a free College education too. I can't think of many people with a College education and an excellent work ethic that are not doing well for them selves, unless they have made other decisions in their life that are preventing them from being successful. The fact is that 95% of people's success depends on them the other 5% is where they came from.
Why would trusting in God piss off Jesus?
The Tesla model S that can do 0 -60 in 4.4s is their $87k performance line that's the bottom end of 911's in price but no where near the performance. The standard $72k 85 kWh has a 0 - 60 of 5.6 sec, the $62k 60kWh 5.9 and the $52k 40kWh 6.5s. As for the seating the model S can fit two adults and 5 kids an hour long trip in the middle row would with two other adults would be hell. On specs they do not compete for their price point, most Luxury sedans run in the 5 - 6 s range and cost between 30-50k. For instance the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG comes in at $62k and has a 0 - 60 time of 4.2 seconds almost two seconds faster then the 60kWh Tesla Model S that is priced similarly. People are simply not buying the model S for its performance specs they are buying it because it's not a lame electric car and they want an electric car. As I stated earlier the accolades are for making an electric car that doesn't suck which to them is a great feat but I'll probably wait until they can compete in their weight class.
They didn't have to bribe anyone. The Model S is a highly acclaimed car from everyone else's perspective:
Not bad for a car company that didn't exist 10 years ago
Being highly acclaimed and being a success are two very different things. Tesla has a small market they are competing with Porsches, BMW's, Audi's, Lotuses. The Model S is outclasses in every measurable category except fuel cost, and emissions then is comparably priced competitors. It is an environmental feel good sports car and while it is cool the only reason they can compete is people buy it to feel smug. It revived those awards because it was the first electric car that was not lame.
Nobody has the right to put religious symbols on public property. Therefor non-religious people have more rights because they don't even want to.
Nice logic there Tom.
Untrue the Government is forbidden from selecting a state religion, there are no laws that state that religious decorations can't be on public property ,"In God We Trust" on money is the most obvious example.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If as the GP stated that all religions and beliefs were invited to decorate then there is no favoritism of religion. They were not choosing one religion over another, they invited everyone to decorate and the atheists decided not to decorate and forced everyone else to take down their decorations.
If N Korea attacks the US or S Korea this is what will happen, first many of the strategic areas will be bombed, armories and SAM sites will be the top priories. Once the Sam sites are knocked out planes and helicopters can fly in and eliminate the artillery which will be N Korea's main attack weapon. The bad thing about artillery is that S Korea can keep tabs on some of the larger pieces but the smaller ones they won't be able to locate until they fire. Even if N Korea had factories S Korea would not be targeting civilians just military targets.
Do you work for Tesla or do you simply own one? Would you have been happy if they ran the car until it was nearly out of power then did the race and had the same result? Before you retort that it would be that same thing as the lotus running out of gas know that the Lotus can be refilled in less then 2 minutes, so it's not an issue when you take Lotus out on a track.
They didn't have a valid point. The car did not run out of power. The show portrayed the car begin pushed, as i if it actually had. That may not have been an explicit lie (i mean, you can push a car that's full of gas, too), but it sure as shit is a misleading, asshole move. The car, fully charged, will get you over 300 miles, as I understand it, though less so at very high speeds. It can fast charge in an hour or so to 80%, which isn't so bad, even long distance. In a pinch you can charge it off a regular power outlet, though that takes a lot longer. The point being that unless you're trying very hard and ignoring the car's very clear warnings, it will not leave you stranded any more than a gas car will.
So your point is that because they didn't actually run the car's batteries down they can't draw attention to the car's batteries running down very quick in track environments and having to wait 40-200x longer then a gas vehicle to recharge it. It would have been nice to see the track day range of the Tesla I'm guessing 60-80 miles but I have yet to see any creditable numbers on it.
They were not required to take diff-eq or real calculus, we were required to take those plus linear algebra, matrix theory, and an Advances Statistics Class. Looking at the currently required curriculum diff-eq, linear algebra, and the Advance Stats Class are all electives now. Our CS curriculum had the same base classes as the EE students, this was because the CS department moved from Arts and Science to Engineering and was grouped with the EE and Comp E. I'm shocked that those classes are not required any more but I work with EEs and Electro-Magnetics all day so my view might be skewed.
Perhaps you had to take easy CS track courses for a semester or two before your GPA was good enough to formally be in CS.
I knew a few failed EEs that went on to 3.5+GPAs in CS. They couldn't handle engineering math.
I don't know what courses were required for your CS department but ours were very heavy in math. Our CS courses were computational mathematics with a side of programming. Mr Maxwell probably tripped them up as long as they could handle linear algebra they could probably get by.
Well-maintained power grid can have transmission loss of around 4% as in the case of South Korea and Japan. I think this is a practical limit as far as conventional conductors go. Unless the superconductors are ridiculously cost-effective to install and maintain, the benefits will never materialize - i.e. become a game changer. To put this into perspective, let's try this. A relatively small country like South Korea still has more than ten thousand miles of transmission lines. Say you replace all that and achieve 4% more power. Since the installed power capacity is around 70GW, that means about 3GW, or about three regular nuclear plants. I highly doubt completely redoing the existing transmission infrastructure with conventional means is possible with the cost of building three nuclear plants, let alone a superconducting one. And I haven't even got to the current limits yet. This is why, if there's a superconductor breakthrough, I think it'll have more impact on medical uses rather than raw power transmission. Disclaimer: I work in the electric power industry.
If the superconductor material was effective at normal temperatures and was not too expensive per mile (ROI of 5-10 years) it certainly would. The new cable would simply be patched in on existing lines when those needed to be replaced and used in all new lines. It absolutely would not be cost effective to do a full infrastructure replacement but if lines have to be replaced then you are not incurring extra labor cost for replacement.
Also if more people switch to solar power for their houses the distribution/transmission losses might go down relative to total generated power.
People have been saying that for years but we still don't have wide adoption, the ROI time for solar panels needs to drop significantly if it ever gets to 5 - 10 years then wide adoption will happen until then it is just a novelty.