Wired is a site that actually pays their writers. The internet has become a place where everybody wants stuff for free, and expects writers to be unpaid; the internet has been flailing around trying to find a model where writers can actually get paid for their work-- but having trouble finding one.
So, give them a little credit-- if you are neither willing to look at ads nor willing to pay-- basically, you want stuff for free--well, ok, don't go there: you can get plenty of free content elsewhere on the internet. It's a race for the bottom. But they are at least trying to find a way to survive and keep paying their writers.
I think what will kill iot is that it's just frankly too expensive.
No, that's just the way technology goes: they sell to the people willing to pay premium prices first, then the cheap bottom of the barrel manufacturers get into the action, and the price drops asymptotically toward zero.
The first hand-held calculators used to cost hundreds of dollars; now you get them free in cereal boxes.
What a crock. Only one calls the toss. Have you ever actually done a coin-toss?
If you want to be pedantic, neither of them call the toss-- neither candidate was even present. The county clerk of elections both flips the coin (or designates the person who does so), and calls which result goes to which candidate (or designates the person who does so). If the clerk calls heads for one candidate, they are calling tails for the other.
That's the way coin tosses work: calling heads one way also means calling tails the other.
What I find more puzzling, and probably more worthy of attention, is that the media almost instantly put out the story "Hillary won six out of six coin flips"-- but the best reported actual data is that, of the coin flips that were officially recorded, Sanders won five out of six against Clinton, and one out of one against O’Malley. (e.g., this report). So, was it just coincidence that the media happened to get 6 out of 6 data points about Hillary winning coin flips against Bernie, but zero out of six data points about Bernie winning coin flips against Hillary? What are the odds of that? Well, the same calculation.
The original six out of six number apparently came from the The Des Moines Register, who based their reporting on what had been posted to Facebook (!). In a later story, they stated that the actual found of coin flips was "unknown".
No, you're making false assumption. I never said anything about the probability of heads (or tails) coming up 6 times in a row.
Let me explain this again. If you ever have the question of "should I use one-tailed or two-tailed probability distribution in this statistical analysis," here is a clue: always use two-tailed unless there is a very compelling argument not to.
The question is, what are the probabilities of calling a coin toss correctly 6 times in a row.
And two people called the coin toss: Sanders and Clinton. The odds of one of the two of them calling it correctly 6 times in a row is one in 32, not one in 62.
The odds of EITHER Bernie OR Hillary getting 6 for 6 would be 1/32. But we are specifically talking about HILLARY, who is the candidate with all the shenanigans.
What you just did here is to insert your own a-priori personal bias into the statistics.
Your personal bias is fine. Just don't confuse it with statistics.
If Bernie won all the coins, it's not because he knows a guy, it's because 1/64 can happen.
Your statement "result X would show shenanigans if it favors candidate Y, but would be explained by random chance if it favors candidate Z" is a statement of personal bias, not a calculation of statistics.
Anyway, other posts say the 6 for 6 wasn't a the whole story anyway.
Yes, exactly. In fact, the best-documented results are from the counties that did their reporting using the election software (about half the counties reported using the software, and half reported by hand). In these counties, Sanders won six coin flips, and Clinton won one. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/... So, a more interesting question might be this: given that there were about a dozen coin flips, and Clinton and Sanders won roughly equal numbers, what are the chances that the six that Clinton won would be commented on by the news media, while the six that Sanders won would be ignored? Is this random, or is this bias?
People make that statistical error all the time. The question is whether to use one-tailed or two-tailed statistical tests. You are proposing using a one-tailed statistical test, but two-tailed is correct here.
The thing that seems anomalous is getting the same result six ties in a row. Whether that's six heads in a row, or six tails in a row, is irrelevant. What you should be testing for is the probability of getting the same result n times in a row, whether that is heads or tails.
But, wait: what if you are about to say "Well, if it had been Bernie that won six times in a row, I'd accept it as chance, but since it's Hillary, I am suspicious"? Wouldn't that be a reason to use one-tailed probabilities?
No. What you just did there was to insert your own bias. The whole point of statistics is to avoid bias. A good rule is, if you can't decide if you should use two-tailed probability or one-tailed, always use two-tailed.
--in any case, though, if the Washington Post is accurate, there were over a dozen coin flips, and Sanders also won some of the tosses.
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
A little over two standard deviations.
However, as Washington Post notes, "see the update below: there were other tosses which Sanders won."
The update states: Update: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
I think the GPU should be open, but you do have to realize that the Gosudarstvennoe Politicheskoe Upravlenie (GPU) hasn't been around since the Soviet Union ended decades ago (in fact, it merged with the NKVD back in the '30s.)
Well, of course that's also the problem with non-smart guns. The difference is that with non-smart guns, the failures are mostly Type I (gun fires when it's not supposed to), while with smart guns, Type I failures are decreased at the expense of an increase in Type II failures (gun doesn't fire when it's supposed to.)
Not necessarily. A gun programmed to scan its video feed, recognize the face of a particular Geoffrey Landis, and shoot - will be called a very smart gun indeed. Such a gun can easily be imagined to have more type-I failures than a 50 year old reliable gun.
Wow, and I'd thought I was the science fiction writer here.
Because global warming is something that happens on a very long time scale, and real estate investment is something that happens on a relatively short time scale.
By the middle of the 2100s, the sea level will, if present trends continue, rise enough to flood Miami. But real estate investors look for profits in ten years or less, and sea levels will rise by no more than millimeters over that time scale.
FYI, honest question here. Why is NOAA so insistent on only releasing data by anomaly and not by actual temperature?
Because the average temperature isn't actually interesting, and not actually terribly useful.
If you want the global average temperature, just calculate the global average temperature of the baseline year, and add the anomaly relative to that baseline year. As should be obvious, the global average temperature is just a baseline shifting the whole curve up or down, and it's simplest to just subtract it out, unless there's some reason you want that absolute number-- and I can't think of any reason you would want that average number.
Different people calculate the average in different ways. The NASA data has the global temperature average in 2013 at 14.6 degrees Celsius-- that would be a good value to use. (If 2013 isn't your baseline year, subtract the anomaly for 2013 to convert to the baseline year you do use-- it's just a baseline shift; the whole curve shifts by the same amount.)
By only looking at the difference from the baseline, you leave out all of the errors that aren't there if you only are looking at the change in temperature at each location, not the absolute temperature.
It's better to just trust the satellite record. (Also, it's fairly annoying how infrequently the error bars are included on those temperature graphs).
There are several satellite data sets, and they have a very large number of corrections required to convert radiance to atmospheric temperature profiles. In general, they give tropospheric temperature, not surface temperature.
The problem with smart guns is that you get the same failure from each path: Somebody gets shot that wasn't supposed to.
Well, of course that's also the problem with non-smart guns. The difference is that with non-smart guns, the failures are mostly Type I (gun fires when it's not supposed to), while with smart guns, Type I failures are decreased at the expense of an increase in Type II failures (gun doesn't fire when it's supposed to.)
This is what we call an engineering trade-off.
Either someone gets shot by your gun when they weren't supposed to, or you get shot by somebody else's because you couldn't shoot them first.
No, of course not. By far the vast majority of gun use is people shooting at targets, at a range or shooting bottles behind their house or whatever. The effect of a type II error would be the shooter cursing at the gun and then cleaning the contacts or adjusting the hand position or cleaning their hand on a towel or whatever the usual fix is.
Since a Type I failure can very often mean somebody in your family gets shot (often by a toddler), whereas a Type II failure is very rarely fatal (since most shooting is at targets), suppressing type I errors in favor of increasing type II failures is likely to be a good trade-off.
I've never, not once in my life, been shot by somebody because I didn't shoot first. Have you? Really?
Forget basic science and the scientific method. I think the main thing he doesn't understand is sarcasm.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet. There's so much hyperbole on the net that isn't intended as sarcasm that it's completely impossible to tell when it is.
Slashdot commenters really need to start learning this.
Extreme weather of any kind is evidence of global warming..
Weather is not climate. Repeat this over and over again: weather is not climate.
One warm winter does not mean "global warming is real." Even a record breaking warm year doesn't mean that global warming is real. Global warming is about long term global averages, not about one particular place, and not about one particular year.
A single record-breaking warm year isn't evidence of global warming... but a string of record warm years is. If it were random, it should be as likely that there are record cold years as record warm years. When you see a string of warm years... that's evidence.
The recent correction is the difference between the black line and the red line. The temperature rise between 1959 and 2014 is about 0.9C. The adjustment, in the last two years, is just barely large enough to see, about 0.05C. Over the full period analyzed, the new global analysis changed the observed rate of warming from 0.065C/decade to 0.068C/decade, less than the noise.
Really, I need to point out that analyzing data sets is what science does. But, if you actually look at the data, even if you throw out the new corrections entirely, it doesn't make a difference. The corrections didn't change whether warming exists or not.
That image is from this article: http://arstechnica.com/science... For reference, here is the paper with the adjustments explained: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... (Karl, et al., "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus," Science Vol. 348 no. 6242, 26 June 2015: pp. 1469-1472 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632)
"Smart" gun means two things: (1) it will fire when it is supposed to fire (2) it will not fire when it is not supposed to fire.
These are the classic types of errors, type-1 error and type-2 error. The lock on your door, for example, has two failure modes: not opening when it is supposed to, or opening when it's not supposed to.
As is always true, you can make the rate of one type of error arbitrarily close to zero by making the other type of error higher. You can lower the failure rate of your door not opening when you want it to, for example, by removing the lock entirely. That increases the failure mode "will open when it's not supposed to," since it now opens to anybody who wants to enter, whether you want them to or not.
The question for "smart" guns is, can you improve the option "won't fire when it's not supposed to" without seriously increasing the probability of it failing to fire when it is supposed to?
Right now, the recommended solution to the failure mode "make sure the gun doesn't fire when it's not supposed to" is "keep the gun in a locked gun safe", and, if you want to make it even safer against that failure, "store the ammunition somewhere else." This does have the problem that when you do want to make the gun fire, you have to unlock the gun safe, take out the gun, and then go to the separate location to load the gun. This solution is so cumbersome that--surprise--a lot of people don't implement it.
How to tell if you’re affected If you can access this article in Firefox, you’re fine.
So, if you Firefox is affected, they won't tell you about it. They'll only tell you if your Firefox is not affected.
Later, same blog post:
What to do if you’re affected The easiest thing to do is to install the newest version of Firefox. You will need to do this manually, using an unaffected copy of Firefox or a different browser, since we only provide Firefox updates over HTTPS.
So, if your Firefox is affected, you can't upgrade it: you need to have the working version of Firefox to download a working version of Firefox.
What a Catch 22! You can't know about the problem unless you already have fixed the problem, and you can't fix the problem... unless you have already fixed the problem.
Jeff Bezos has been that annoying smug asshole with an ego too big for his accomplishments.
I would have said the opposite. What is interesting about Blue Origin is how little they've been interested in press coverage. Mostly their attitude seems to be "let's build stuff; not talk about it." Space-X, and Musk, are constantly getting interviews, getting press coverage, discussing future plans and blue-sky concepts; Blue Origin, and Bezos, almost never discusses the future plans.
(a quick google search tells me that Blue Origin gets 1/30 of the news coverage hits that SpaceX does)
What Blue Origin and SpaceX did are completely different...
Yes, that part is true; they are in many ways very different.
I'm not sure I understand the point of a ship landing. If you want to end up on a ship, it seems like a close-to-ship splashdown and recovery would be much simpler and cheaper to implement.
It's easier, but not a good idea if you want to re-use the equipment. Dunking hot rocket engines into cold saltwater turns out to be a bad thing for the hardware.
What will happen is that, at some point, people who have lived there their entire lives and do not share the extreme political views will have to move out. I guess that's called "liberty".
That's correct. If you don't like your neighbors, move. As you say, that's liberty.
It's like a less violent ISIS.
Since the violence is main reason to dislike ISIS, I'm not sure what the point is here. If ISIS wasn't violent, they'd be little more worthy of attention than any other fringe religious group, like Mormons or Rastafarians.
Slashdot Mirror
Wired is a site that actually pays their writers. The internet has become a place where everybody wants stuff for free, and expects writers to be unpaid; the internet has been flailing around trying to find a model where writers can actually get paid for their work-- but having trouble finding one.
So, give them a little credit-- if you are neither willing to look at ads nor willing to pay-- basically, you want stuff for free--well, ok, don't go there: you can get plenty of free content elsewhere on the internet. It's a race for the bottom. But they are at least trying to find a way to survive and keep paying their writers.
(Hufflepuff Post is probably about the worst of the lot-- their business model is "we get millions of dollars, people who write for us get nothing.")
http://blogpaws.com/executive-...
http://www.mayhillfowler.com/p...
http://inthesetimes.com/workin...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
I think what will kill iot is that it's just frankly too expensive.
No, that's just the way technology goes: they sell to the people willing to pay premium prices first, then the cheap bottom of the barrel manufacturers get into the action, and the price drops asymptotically toward zero.
The first hand-held calculators used to cost hundreds of dollars; now you get them free in cereal boxes.
NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...
http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...
http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
What a crock. Only one calls the toss. Have you ever actually done a coin-toss?
If you want to be pedantic, neither of them call the toss-- neither candidate was even present. The county clerk of elections both flips the coin (or designates the person who does so), and calls which result goes to which candidate (or designates the person who does so). If the clerk calls heads for one candidate, they are calling tails for the other.
That's the way coin tosses work: calling heads one way also means calling tails the other.
What I find more puzzling, and probably more worthy of attention, is that the media almost instantly put out the story "Hillary won six out of six coin flips"-- but the best reported actual data is that, of the coin flips that were officially recorded, Sanders won five out of six against Clinton, and one out of one against O’Malley. (e.g., this report).
So, was it just coincidence that the media happened to get 6 out of 6 data points about Hillary winning coin flips against Bernie, but zero out of six data points about Bernie winning coin flips against Hillary? What are the odds of that? Well, the same calculation.
The original six out of six number apparently came from the The Des Moines Register, who based their reporting on what had been posted to Facebook (!). In a later story, they stated that the actual found of coin flips was "unknown".
No, you're making false assumption. I never said anything about the probability of heads (or tails) coming up 6 times in a row.
Let me explain this again. If you ever have the question of "should I use one-tailed or two-tailed probability distribution in this statistical analysis," here is a clue: always use two-tailed unless there is a very compelling argument not to.
The question is, what are the probabilities of calling a coin toss correctly 6 times in a row.
And two people called the coin toss: Sanders and Clinton. The odds of one of the two of them calling it correctly 6 times in a row is one in 32, not one in 62.
http://study.com/academy/lesso...
Hahaha no.
The odds of EITHER Bernie OR Hillary getting 6 for 6 would be 1/32. But we are specifically talking about HILLARY, who is the candidate with all the shenanigans.
What you just did here is to insert your own a-priori personal bias into the statistics.
Your personal bias is fine. Just don't confuse it with statistics.
If Bernie won all the coins, it's not because he knows a guy, it's because 1/64 can happen.
Your statement "result X would show shenanigans if it favors candidate Y, but would be explained by random chance if it favors candidate Z" is a statement of personal bias, not a calculation of statistics.
Anyway, other posts say the 6 for 6 wasn't a the whole story anyway.
Yes, exactly. In fact, the best-documented results are from the counties that did their reporting using the election software (about half the counties reported using the software, and half reported by hand). In these counties, Sanders won six coin flips, and Clinton won one.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...
So, a more interesting question might be this: given that there were about a dozen coin flips, and Clinton and Sanders won roughly equal numbers, what are the chances that the six that Clinton won would be commented on by the news media, while the six that Sanders won would be ignored? Is this random, or is this bias?
Nope.
People make that statistical error all the time. The question is whether to use one-tailed or two-tailed statistical tests. You are proposing using a one-tailed statistical test, but two-tailed is correct here.
The thing that seems anomalous is getting the same result six ties in a row. Whether that's six heads in a row, or six tails in a row, is irrelevant. What you should be testing for is the probability of getting the same result n times in a row, whether that is heads or tails.
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/m... tells more.
But, wait: what if you are about to say "Well, if it had been Bernie that won six times in a row, I'd accept it as chance, but since it's Hillary, I am suspicious"? Wouldn't that be a reason to use one-tailed probabilities?
No. What you just did there was to insert your own bias. The whole point of statistics is to avoid bias.
A good rule is, if you can't decide if you should use two-tailed probability or one-tailed, always use two-tailed.
--in any case, though, if the Washington Post is accurate, there were over a dozen coin flips, and Sanders also won some of the tosses.
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
A little over two standard deviations.
However, as Washington Post notes, "see the update below: there were other tosses which Sanders won."
The update states:
Update: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I think the GPU should be open, but you do have to realize that the Gosudarstvennoe Politicheskoe Upravlenie (GPU) hasn't been around since the Soviet Union ended decades ago (in fact, it merged with the NKVD back in the '30s.)
https://www.marxists.org/archi...
Well, of course that's also the problem with non-smart guns. The difference is that with non-smart guns, the failures are mostly Type I (gun fires when it's not supposed to), while with smart guns, Type I failures are decreased at the expense of an increase in Type II failures (gun doesn't fire when it's supposed to.)
Not necessarily. A gun programmed to scan its video feed, recognize the face of a particular Geoffrey Landis, and shoot - will be called a very smart gun indeed. Such a gun can easily be imagined to have more type-I failures than a 50 year old reliable gun.
Wow, and I'd thought I was the science fiction writer here.
Because global warming is something that happens on a very long time scale, and real estate investment is something that happens on a relatively short time scale.
By the middle of the 2100s, the sea level will, if present trends continue, rise enough to flood Miami. But real estate investors look for profits in ten years or less, and sea levels will rise by no more than millimeters over that time scale.
FYI, honest question here. Why is NOAA so insistent on only releasing data by anomaly and not by actual temperature?
Because the average temperature isn't actually interesting, and not actually terribly useful.
If you want the global average temperature, just calculate the global average temperature of the baseline year, and add the anomaly relative to that baseline year. As should be obvious, the global average temperature is just a baseline shifting the whole curve up or down, and it's simplest to just subtract it out, unless there's some reason you want that absolute number-- and I can't think of any reason you would want that average number.
Different people calculate the average in different ways. The NASA data has the global temperature average in 2013 at 14.6 degrees Celsius-- that would be a good value to use. (If 2013 isn't your baseline year, subtract the anomaly for 2013 to convert to the baseline year you do use-- it's just a baseline shift; the whole curve shifts by the same amount.)
By only looking at the difference from the baseline, you leave out all of the errors that aren't there if you only are looking at the change in temperature at each location, not the absolute temperature.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globa...
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/ballas...
The prediction was for a likelihood of stronger hurricanes over a time scale of fifty to a hundred years.
The time scale is important.
Any one year-- even a bad year-- is still just weather.
It's better to just trust the satellite record. (Also, it's fairly annoying how infrequently the error bars are included on those temperature graphs).
There are several satellite data sets, and they have a very large number of corrections required to convert radiance to atmospheric temperature profiles. In general, they give tropospheric temperature, not surface temperature.
Which data set do you like?
The problem with smart guns is that you get the same failure from each path: Somebody gets shot that wasn't supposed to.
Well, of course that's also the problem with non-smart guns. The difference is that with non-smart guns, the failures are mostly Type I (gun fires when it's not supposed to), while with smart guns, Type I failures are decreased at the expense of an increase in Type II failures (gun doesn't fire when it's supposed to.)
This is what we call an engineering trade-off.
Either someone gets shot by your gun when they weren't supposed to, or you get shot by somebody else's because you couldn't shoot them first.
No, of course not. By far the vast majority of gun use is people shooting at targets, at a range or shooting bottles behind their house or whatever. The effect of a type II error would be the shooter cursing at the gun and then cleaning the contacts or adjusting the hand position or cleaning their hand on a towel or whatever the usual fix is.
Since a Type I failure can very often mean somebody in your family gets shot (often by a toddler), whereas a Type II failure is very rarely fatal (since most shooting is at targets), suppressing type I errors in favor of increasing type II failures is likely to be a good trade-off.
I've never, not once in my life, been shot by somebody because I didn't shoot first. Have you? Really?
Forget basic science and the scientific method. I think the main thing he doesn't understand is sarcasm.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet. There's so much hyperbole on the net that isn't intended as sarcasm that it's completely impossible to tell when it is.
Slashdot commenters really need to start learning this.
Don't you understand BASIC SCIENCE?
Extreme weather of any kind is evidence of global warming..
Weather is not climate. Repeat this over and over again: weather is not climate.
One warm winter does not mean "global warming is real." Even a record breaking warm year doesn't mean that global warming is real. Global warming is about long term global averages, not about one particular place, and not about one particular year.
A single record-breaking warm year isn't evidence of global warming... but a string of record warm years is. If it were random, it should be as likely that there are record cold years as record warm years. When you see a string of warm years... that's evidence.
Here is the "adjustment" you're referring to:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-...
The recent correction is the difference between the black line and the red line. The temperature rise between 1959 and 2014 is about 0.9C. The adjustment, in the last two years, is just barely large enough to see, about 0.05C. Over the full period analyzed, the new global analysis changed the observed rate of warming from 0.065C/decade to 0.068C/decade, less than the noise.
Really, I need to point out that analyzing data sets is what science does. But, if you actually look at the data, even if you throw out the new corrections entirely, it doesn't make a difference. The corrections didn't change whether warming exists or not.
That image is from this article: http://arstechnica.com/science...
For reference, here is the paper with the adjustments explained: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
(Karl, et al., "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus," Science Vol. 348 no. 6242, 26 June 2015: pp. 1469-1472
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632)
You might think differently depending where you live.. I'd want BOTH my cars to start AND my weapons to fire, EVERY time.
But you have a key to start your car, and the car won't start without the key.
Do you have a key to start your gun, and the gun won't fire without the key?
"Smart" gun means two things:
(1) it will fire when it is supposed to fire
(2) it will not fire when it is not supposed to fire.
These are the classic types of errors, type-1 error and type-2 error. The lock on your door, for example, has two failure modes: not opening when it is supposed to, or opening when it's not supposed to.
As is always true, you can make the rate of one type of error arbitrarily close to zero by making the other type of error higher. You can lower the failure rate of your door not opening when you want it to, for example, by removing the lock entirely. That increases the failure mode "will open when it's not supposed to," since it now opens to anybody who wants to enter, whether you want them to or not.
The question for "smart" guns is, can you improve the option "won't fire when it's not supposed to" without seriously increasing the probability of it failing to fire when it is supposed to?
The failure mode "gun fires when it isn't supposed to" covers cases such cases as, your 4-year old finds it and shoots somebody, or somebody grabs your gun and shoots you, or even you drop the gun and it fires.
Right now, the recommended solution to the failure mode "make sure the gun doesn't fire when it's not supposed to" is "keep the gun in a locked gun safe", and, if you want to make it even safer against that failure, "store the ammunition somewhere else." This does have the problem that when you do want to make the gun fire, you have to unlock the gun safe, take out the gun, and then go to the separate location to load the gun. This solution is so cumbersome that--surprise--a lot of people don't implement it.
People will notice, they will not be able to use their bank for example, they probably try reinstalling Firefox,
But, per the article, they can't upgrade to the more recent Firefox if what they have is the old version of Firefox.
or the worse for Mozilla, install Chrome
Exactly! When the fix for the problem is "use somebody else's product", I'd call this a real problem for Firefox. Wait, isn't that what I just said?
Wow, looks like Firefox has some real problems.
Wow, looks like Firefox has some real problems.
From the link quoted: https://blog.mozilla.org/secur...
How to tell if you’re affected
If you can access this article in Firefox, you’re fine.
So, if you Firefox is affected, they won't tell you about it. They'll only tell you if your Firefox is not affected.
Later, same blog post:
What to do if you’re affected
The easiest thing to do is to install the newest version of Firefox. You will need to do this manually, using an unaffected copy of Firefox or a different browser, since we only provide Firefox updates over HTTPS.
So, if your Firefox is affected, you can't upgrade it: you need to have the working version of Firefox to download a working version of Firefox.
What a Catch 22! You can't know about the problem unless you already have fixed the problem, and you can't fix the problem... unless you have already fixed the problem.
Jeff Bezos has been that annoying smug asshole with an ego too big for his accomplishments.
I would have said the opposite. What is interesting about Blue Origin is how little they've been interested in press coverage. Mostly their attitude seems to be "let's build stuff; not talk about it." Space-X, and Musk, are constantly getting interviews, getting press coverage, discussing future plans and blue-sky concepts; Blue Origin, and Bezos, almost never discusses the future plans.
(a quick google search tells me that Blue Origin gets 1/30 of the news coverage hits that SpaceX does)
What Blue Origin and SpaceX did are completely different ...
Yes, that part is true; they are in many ways very different.
I'm not sure I understand the point of a ship landing. If you want to end up on a ship, it seems like a close-to-ship splashdown and recovery would be much simpler and cheaper to implement.
It's easier, but not a good idea if you want to re-use the equipment. Dunking hot rocket engines into cold saltwater turns out to be a bad thing for the hardware.
What will happen is that, at some point, people who have lived there their entire lives and do not share the extreme political views will have to move out.
I guess that's called "liberty".
That's correct. If you don't like your neighbors, move. As you say, that's liberty.
It's like a less violent ISIS.
Since the violence is main reason to dislike ISIS, I'm not sure what the point is here. If ISIS wasn't violent, they'd be little more worthy of attention than any other fringe religious group, like Mormons or Rastafarians.