Quite. But - if the senior managers are dealing with 100* the sensitive material that a normal employee does - then their rate is very considerably better indeed. They only need to deal with four times as much sensitive information to do twice as well.
The time to: Notice the alert Move your head/eyes to a position where you can easily see the road Scan the scene briefly to work out where you are Assess what's changing about the scene Plan and work out what you need to do. Get your hands/feet/fingers on the controls. Start doing whatever - is very unlikely to be less than a couple of seconds if you were truly distracted.
For example - deeply into reading a book. Any reaction significantly less than this is likely to skip one or more of the above.
Responding only to the new claimants point. That number includes people who claim ESA, and then get better, and report they have done so before the assessment. If you've broken both legs, you will normally be fit again before 13 weeks - as with most short term illnesses.
The numbers above are somewhat flawed. 27% 'found fit' - this is before appeals. For represented appeals - there is someone to help with the appeal - well over 50% succeed. Of those not appealing, it neglects those not doing so because they go on to claim some other benefit - because they are caring for someone with disabilities say.
'Acted somewhat as an amnesty' - this is very, very much not the case.
The regulations for IB, and ESA are utterly different. As one example, IB had to make some finding that there was work you could in principle reasonably do. ESA does not.
The 27% is (neglecting appeals, which drop this figure considerably) not due to people misrepresenting their condition. It is due to the government moving the goalposts.
Have their been reasonable changes - yes.
The rules do not assess complex disabilities well. For example, take two people.
One has a sports injury, meaning they can't bend their elbows past 90 degrees, so can't place their arms in their upper shirt pockets, but is otherwise healthy with a university degree.
The other can slowly propel themseves 200 m in a wheelchairindoors a few times a day, cannot talk to strangers much of the time, has severe incontinence every few weeks, only understands the simplest of phrases, and can just about work a washing machine.
There are two groups - meant for the long-term ill with the severest disability, and one for those who may be helped into work.
The person with the elbow injury is placed in the most supported category with nothing expected of them. The second is found fit for work.
Claiming that the 27% (accepting that figure for the moment) were being 'let off' prior frauds is like claiming that people are let off past income tax fraud when the personal allowance goes up.
'Incidentally, if you are physically capable of committing violent crime then you are physically capable of doing legal work too.'
Really?
Violent crime requires no timekeeping. It does not require you to work with others. It does not require literacy or numeracy. It doesn't need reasonable personal hygiene. It doesn't need you to be predictable. Nor reliable, or any other of the many things normally required by an employer.
Even leaving aside the issues of actual employability. You have two applicants. One of which just came out of Wormwood Scrubbs for punching to death someone in a job interview because they asked too many questions. The other is fresh out of school. Who gets the job?
They looked. In depth - and did detailed examination of a random selection of cases. A low level of fraud was found.
The problem is that it is politically convenient to state that there is a lot of fraud, because this gives an excuse to reduce eligibility, because 'they're all thieving bastards anyway'. This is also great for the press, as it generates nice simple stories 'Look at this man, he claimed to have a bad back, and is running a marathon'.
The story 'Well, it turns out there are actually quite a lot of ill and disabled people' - is quite boring.
'The bumholes that defraud the benefit system on a long term basis and drug addicts picking up their state-funded high'. The implication of this government has always been that fraud is high.
However, their internal checks have consistently failed to find numbers matching this rhetoric. Illness and disability benefits when checked find about 0.5% fraud. And about the same amount of awards due to staff error.
The implication of benefit fraud is being used to excuse a 20% reduction in eligibility for one disability benefit.
I note Iain Duncan Smith has said of the rise of use of food banks. 'Well - it's free - of course people will use it' - implying people not in need use them. And it's been made general policy for local DWP staff to avoid giving reasons 'late payment of benefit' when referring people to food banks.
This makes it harder for the food banks to collect proper statistics. This has lead to the government reporting rises at food banks as 'anecdotal' - because they have to ask the person turning up why they were referred.
Suppliers are understandably wary of signing such contracts, when ministers regularly get 'good ideas' and start imposing new design requirements regularly during projects. Is this the fault of 'fat cat contractors' - perhaps to a degree. Does government have its own share - oh yes.
This above scenario is quite doable with modest amounts of your own code - most has already been written. I would estimate a minimum cost for the above device - a device that holds say a SKS with a 75 round drum and can shoot an aimed round once a second at targets close to each other - at around $300.
As I suspect are most people. I'm a gearhead when considering electronic test equipment. I'm more of a prosumer for commodity computer hardware. I'm pretty normal for tablet use - I haven't even rooted my nexus 7. I'm well below normal about how much I care about cars and TVs.
The notion that people care equally much about all aspects of a wide field 'tech' is barking mad.
That's not the point. The actual published results - even if published in an obscure journal tend to stick around _much_ more.
Even old journals which go out of publication get their archives and the rights to distribute them bought - as there is some small amount of value there, in addition to the copies in the various reference libraries around the world.
The problem is that if you are wondering about that graph on page 14 of the paper that the whole paper rests on, you can't get the original data to recreate that graph.
This is a major problem because the only way to check that graph is now to redo the whole experiment.
For a 30 mile link, the fresnel zone reaches 100 feet in the middle of the link - if anything is in this zone, then the signal will be severely affected. Add to this the limitation of sight due to a non-flat horizon - 150 feet towers are needed just to get minimum line of sight. For flat land with trees up to 30 feet in places in the middle, for example, that adds up to a total of (100/2)+30+150 = 230 feet towers.
If one end is at altitude - you still may need a significant tower in order to clear the fresnel zone.
'in TFA summary "chronic disease" jumped out at me...that's a pretty high bar for ***anything known to medical science*** to hit, and no one ever really claimed that multivitamins would just flat prevent cancer.'
"In two large, independent cohorts of nurses and other health professionals, the frequency of nut consumption was inversely associated with total and cause-specific mortality, independently of other predictors of death. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.)."
The funding body is unfortunate, but there do seem to be similar studies backing this up.
Err - no. Money was accepted for an item to be sent to the buyer. A different item was sent to the buyer.
The first contract has not yet been fulfilled, and the item actually delivered was a delivery in error. As the delivery in error was not an intended delivery (the law specifically regulates spamming random products to addresses that diddn't order them - in that case they get to keep it) they have to return it.
No, it's not. This situation deeply depresses me, the fact however remains - you cannot legitimately sell a SDXC compatible device without it supporting exfat.
Oh yes it does. If your device doesn't support SDXC + exfat - you can't call it SDXC on the sticker. Windows will not format as other than exfat volumes >32G, without jumping through hoops - and automatically formatting non exfat volumes >32G as exfat is actually conforming to the spec.
As I understand it, exfat has been carefully designed to be rather patent laden, and rely on multiple patents - not just this one that is due to expire soon.
Patents are to trade the private good of being able to exploit your idea as a monopoly for the public good of releasing that idea to the world after a time.
One very obvious point is that If it would take longer to research and find a patented idea than for a skilled engineer in the field, facing the same problem to reinvent that patent - there is no public good in having the idea released after a time.
I would go so far as to say that no patent should ever be given for any invention where it is reinvent-able by someone unfamiliar with the patent who is skilled in the field and facing the same problem in under about a month of lab time.
Slashdot Mirror
If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.
Quite.
But - if the senior managers are dealing with 100* the sensitive material that a normal employee does - then their rate is very considerably better indeed.
They only need to deal with four times as much sensitive information to do twice as well.
Context switching is a bitch.
The time to:
Notice the alert
Move your head/eyes to a position where you can easily see the road
Scan the scene briefly to work out where you are
Assess what's changing about the scene
Plan and work out what you need to do.
Get your hands/feet/fingers on the controls.
Start doing whatever - is very unlikely to be less than a couple of seconds if you were truly distracted.
For example - deeply into reading a book.
Any reaction significantly less than this is likely to skip one or more of the above.
Fraud and error statistics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265788/nsfr-final-291112.pdf
In 2011/12.
0.7% of total benefit paid is paid due to claimant fraud.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/222694/fem_1011_revised2.pdf
Page 17 DLA fraud 0.5%.
IB fraud 0.3%.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/222694/fem_1011_revised2.pdf
The growth in cases of DLA is largely because there were no people claiming DLA over 65 when it came in, but people eligible would continued to be paid after that time.
So, the numbers grow.
Responding only to the new claimants point.
That number includes people who claim ESA, and then get better, and report they have done so before the assessment.
If you've broken both legs, you will normally be fit again before 13 weeks - as with most short term illnesses.
The numbers above are somewhat flawed.
27% 'found fit' - this is before appeals.
For represented appeals - there is someone to help with the appeal - well over 50% succeed.
Of those not appealing, it neglects those not doing so because they go on to claim some other benefit - because they are caring for someone with disabilities say.
'Acted somewhat as an amnesty' - this is very, very much not the case.
The regulations for IB, and ESA are utterly different.
As one example, IB had to make some finding that there was work you could in principle reasonably do.
ESA does not.
The 27% is (neglecting appeals, which drop this figure considerably) not due to people misrepresenting their condition.
It is due to the government moving the goalposts.
Have their been reasonable changes - yes.
The rules do not assess complex disabilities well.
For example, take two people.
One has a sports injury, meaning they can't bend their elbows past 90 degrees, so can't place their arms in their upper shirt pockets, but is otherwise healthy with a university degree.
The other can slowly propel themseves 200 m in a wheelchairindoors a few times a day, cannot talk to strangers much of the time, has severe incontinence every few weeks, only understands the simplest of phrases, and can just about work a washing machine.
There are two groups - meant for the long-term ill with the severest disability, and one for those who may be helped into work.
The person with the elbow injury is placed in the most supported category with nothing expected of them. The second is found fit for work.
Claiming that the 27% (accepting that figure for the moment) were being 'let off' prior frauds is like claiming that people are let off past income tax fraud when the personal allowance goes up.
'Incidentally, if you are physically capable of committing violent crime then you are physically capable of doing legal work too.'
Really?
Violent crime requires no timekeeping.
It does not require you to work with others.
It does not require literacy or numeracy.
It doesn't need reasonable personal hygiene.
It doesn't need you to be predictable.
Nor reliable, or any other of the many things normally required by an employer.
Even leaving aside the issues of actual employability.
You have two applicants. One of which just came out of Wormwood Scrubbs for punching to death someone in a job interview because they asked too many questions. The other is fresh out of school.
Who gets the job?
They looked.
In depth - and did detailed examination of a random selection of cases.
A low level of fraud was found.
The problem is that it is politically convenient to state that there is a lot of fraud, because this gives an excuse to reduce eligibility, because 'they're all thieving bastards anyway'.
This is also great for the press, as it generates nice simple stories 'Look at this man, he claimed to have a bad back, and is running a marathon'.
The story 'Well, it turns out there are actually quite a lot of ill and disabled people' - is quite boring.
'The bumholes that defraud the benefit system on a long term basis and drug addicts picking up their state-funded high'.
The implication of this government has always been that fraud is high.
However, their internal checks have consistently failed to find numbers matching this rhetoric.
Illness and disability benefits when checked find about 0.5% fraud. And about the same amount of awards due to staff error.
The implication of benefit fraud is being used to excuse a 20% reduction in eligibility for one disability benefit.
Fraud on job-seekers allowance is higher.
I note Iain Duncan Smith has said of the rise of use of food banks. 'Well - it's free - of course people will use it' - implying people not in need use them.
And it's been made general policy for local DWP staff to avoid giving reasons 'late payment of benefit' when referring people to food banks.
This makes it harder for the food banks to collect proper statistics.
This has lead to the government reporting rises at food banks as 'anecdotal' - because they have to ask the person turning up why they were referred.
Suppliers are understandably wary of signing such contracts, when ministers regularly get 'good ideas' and start imposing new design requirements regularly during projects.
Is this the fault of 'fat cat contractors' - perhaps to a degree.
Does government have its own share - oh yes.
You overestimate the development required.
This above scenario is quite doable with modest amounts of your own code - most has already been written.
I would estimate a minimum cost for the above device - a device that holds say a SKS with a 75 round drum and can shoot an aimed round once a second at targets close to each other - at around $300.
As I suspect are most people.
I'm a gearhead when considering electronic test equipment.
I'm more of a prosumer for commodity computer hardware.
I'm pretty normal for tablet use - I haven't even rooted my nexus 7.
I'm well below normal about how much I care about cars and TVs.
The notion that people care equally much about all aspects of a wide field 'tech' is barking mad.
That's not the point.
The actual published results - even if published in an obscure journal tend to stick around _much_ more.
Even old journals which go out of publication get their archives and the rights to distribute them bought - as there is some small amount of value there, in addition to the copies in the various reference libraries around the world.
The problem is that if you are wondering about that graph on page 14 of the paper that the whole paper rests on, you can't get the original data to recreate that graph.
This is a major problem because the only way to check that graph is now to redo the whole experiment.
Quite - I arbitrarily assumed 2.4GHz.
They are good for 30 miles - if there is a clear path.
This is not just line of sight - but slightly more than this - the path cannot go just past obstacles.
http://www.proxim.com/products/knowledge-center/calculations/calculations-fresnel-clearance-zone
For a 30 mile link, the fresnel zone reaches 100 feet in the middle of the link - if anything is in this zone, then the signal will be severely affected.
Add to this the limitation of sight due to a non-flat horizon - 150 feet towers are needed just to get minimum line of sight.
For flat land with trees up to 30 feet in places in the middle, for example, that adds up to a total of (100/2)+30+150 =
230 feet towers.
If one end is at altitude - you still may need a significant tower in order to clear the fresnel zone.
If you happen to be in range of an existing tower.
'in TFA summary "chronic disease" jumped out at me...that's a pretty high bar for ***anything known to medical science*** to hit, and no one ever really claimed that multivitamins would just flat prevent cancer.'
Nuts.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24256379
"In two large, independent cohorts of nurses and other health professionals, the frequency of nut consumption was inversely associated with total and cause-specific mortality, independently of other predictors of death. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.)."
The funding body is unfortunate, but there do seem to be similar studies backing this up.
You can use pills to get girls into bed with you - but you generally have to crush them up so they're not noticed.
Err - no.
Money was accepted for an item to be sent to the buyer.
A different item was sent to the buyer.
The first contract has not yet been fulfilled, and the item actually delivered was a delivery in error.
As the delivery in error was not an intended delivery (the law specifically regulates spamming random products to addresses that diddn't order them - in that case they get to keep it) they have to return it.
NAO!
No, it's not.
This situation deeply depresses me, the fact however remains - you cannot legitimately sell a SDXC compatible device without it supporting exfat.
Oh yes it does.
If your device doesn't support SDXC + exfat - you can't call it SDXC on the sticker.
Windows will not format as other than exfat volumes >32G, without jumping through hoops - and automatically formatting non exfat volumes >32G as exfat is actually conforming to the spec.
As I understand it, exfat has been carefully designed to be rather patent laden, and rely on multiple patents - not just this one that is due to expire soon.
Patents are to trade the private good of being able to exploit your idea as a monopoly for the public good of releasing that idea to the world after a time.
One very obvious point is that If it would take longer to research and find a patented idea than for a skilled engineer in the field, facing the same problem to reinvent that patent - there is no public good in having the idea released after a time.
I would go so far as to say that no patent should ever be given for any invention where it is reinvent-able by someone unfamiliar with the patent who is skilled in the field and facing the same problem in under about a month of lab time.