Four digits gives 11m squares, which is close enough for anyone making deliveries to figure out the exact location within that square. If you want a 5th digit, you now have precision that can tell the difference between trees.
I think the point of the 3 ft squares is for very compact places, like slums in India, where there might be several "houses" in an 11 m square. So, to be comparable, it appears that you'd need that 5th digit. But it isn't really 5 digits. It's 5 digits after the decimal place. In each direction. Plus you need something to indicate direction (for brevity, I'd think +/- would be better than N/S/E/W). So, my address is XX.XXXXX,-XX.XXXXX, according to Google Maps. That makes 14 characters to memorize assuming I don't waste any brain power on the decimals and negative sign. This is approximately double the number of digits most people's brains supposedly prefer.
From what I gather from the comments, the benefits of the current GPS system are:
1) It already has a foothold. 2) It's easy to tell by comparing gps units where two places are compared to each other. 3) It can be more or less precise by adding or removing digits. 4) The digits easily translate to other languages (or, rather, they need no translation)
The benefits of the 3x3 system are: 1) It's really easy to remember the "address" for a very specific place.
The drawbacks I'm hearing for GPS are: 1) It's hard to remember the "address."
I think I'm now convinced that the GPS system is better. For example, in the 3x3 system, you can't say its in the vicinity of rabbit.tree.hook without having to look up what on earth (literally) that means. You need a whole new address for every language. In English, my address might be tree.rock.squirrel, while in spanish my address might be tango.juevo.puerta (because they can't use translations of the same words for the same place--here aren't enough words in the other languages and also words often don't translate cleanly). I was playing around with the map--squares very close to each other have completely different "addresses." And there is no way to address a larger quadrant, which is trivial in GPS by simply removing a digit.
I understand the issue with a GPS user's device having accuracy problems, but I don't see how the 3x3 system solves that. I think the versatility of the GPS system compared to the 3x3 system makes it ultimately superior, despite the comparative difficulty of memorizing "addresses."
1) The 3 words narrow things down to 3x3 foot squares. The GPS coordinates narrow things down to approximately a housing block. I'm not sure how many digits it would take to get GPS down to the specificity of 3x3 foot squares, assuming it is possible. The point the creators are trying to make is that more detail is needed for most places.
2) I'll give you 60 seconds to memorize the GPS coordinates of a housing block versus 60 seconds to memorize 3 English words. Guess what will be easier for 99% of the population.
I am not a security expert, but my thoughts are that "Anonymous" isn't really hurting anything.
1) An article from The Guardian speculating that Anonymous might be doing more harm than good does not equate to national intelligence agencies complaining that Anonymous is doing more harm than good.
2) If intelligence agencies are watching Twitter accounts for covert intelligence, that is idiotic. Twitter posts are public, easy to find, and unencrypted (I suppose you could hide a secret message in a Twitter post, but anyway...). It seems to me that the Rickrolling is perfect for disrupting ISIS sponsored Twitter recruitment accounts. When it comes to actually planning attacks, I imagine this makes no difference whatsoever--that is more likely done by ISIS on encrypted non-public channels that the intelligence agencies are trying to find and decrypt.
Interesting--I did not realize that. I have several Roku boxes and I do use Prime on them through the official Prime app (side note--I wonder if lack of the app in the UK is due to the movie studios). So, this raises another interesting point, though: could Amazon make the Apple TV and Google thinger (whatever it's called) less attractive to people who have prime and not Netflix by simply pulling its Prime app?
I rated Bennet Hasselton 5 stars in Professional "delivered crack to children in a professional and timely manner"
Exactly. Who decides what a positive review is? Anything ranked 5 stars? So, if I mark 5 stars and say terrible things, it is open for all to see?
Also, how can I look at the bad reviews about myself in order to determine whether I want to risk them becoming public? Sign up? Which automatically makes them visible for all?
And then there is this:
You can’t opt out — once someone puts your name in the Peeple system, it’s there unless you violate the site’s terms of service.
So the only people not in the system are the ones who violate the terms of service? Well, plan on your terms of service being flagrantly violated.
And, the founders say that people can report inaccurate information in reviews. I hope they're prepared to employ an army to consider accuracy (and how on earth are they going to actually determine accuracy?)....
Perhaps the GP tried an early version of Windows 10--perhaps it didn't default to tablet mode on tablets at that time. The Verge article says it does now. Of course, maybe it isn't functioning properly....
I don't see why people think IE can be "killed." Until you convince curmudgeony old people (like governments) whose web-based tools break on anything other than IE to pay green money to update their websites, IE will stick around. And, since some people (mostly governments) will never be willing to pay money to fix something that "isn't broken" (as long as you use it on IE), IE will never, ever be completely dispensable.
I was listening to Star Talk again last night and they happened again to talk about dark matter. Neal said that, whatever dark matter is, the apparent characteristics are that it does not interact with normal matter or with itself except by exhibiting gravitational force. Normal matter, he said, attracts other normal matter via gravity and when that attraction brings the objects together, they stick together. Whereas dark matter exerts the gravitational force but does not "stick" to normal matter or to itself.
It seems to me that a black hole is made of up exceedingly dense normal matter, and does "stick" to normal matter in that the normal matter drawn into the black hole becomes a part of the mass of the black hole. So, I don't think that a lot of super massive black holes would exhibit the characteristics observed of dark matter.
My recollection of what Neal DeGrasse Tyson said on one of his podcasts is that matter we cannot see wouldn't explain the "missing mass" because experiments indicate that "dark matter" does not interact with normal matter or photons, except in the form of gravity. I had thought for some time, "perhaps dark matter is just matter for which we have no evidence of its existence because we cannot see it." A hidden black hole would fit the bill there. But what was said on the show completely dispelled that notion. The problem here is that I am a non-scientist and don't quite recall what he said in the episode. Real scientists with knowledge of this--please weigh in!
As a footnote--Wikipedia says that a small portion of "dark matter" seems to be just regular matter we cannot see, but mostly it seems to not fit the characteristics of regular matter.
Follow-up question--could a huge number of supermassive black holes cause the effects we see from earth? My reasoning suggests the answer would be "no." The thought process being that, if scientists have been theorizing a larger number of supermassive black holes for some time and also wondering what this "dark matter" stuff is, more of those scientists would have said, "perhaps dark matter consists of those theorized black holes we haven't seen." I think this hasn't happened because scientists who actually know this stuff (not me) had already concluded that black holes don't fit the mugshot.
Many of the roads of have no speed limits. That's legitimate enough for me. Also, it is the sister isle to Thomas the Tank Engine's (fictional) Sodor, which might be reason enough for someone else.
[T]he device doesn't contain any onboard air supply . . . if the device loses power for any reason (electrical, mechanical, computational) then you better be able to hold your breath for a long long time.
My understanding is that modern household water wells generally use reverse osmosis systems. Water quality from drinking wells varies widely depending on the location and quality of the well. But (1) they aren't 100% effective, nor can they be against unanticipated chemicals that weren't being pumped into the ground en masse at the time the well was designed, and (2) I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade my drinking water well filter to handle chemicals used in fracking. Fracking companies should be not contaminating my drinking water.
Who markets the water for the drinking well at a person's home?
You're thinking of the local water company with it's water filtering plants and pipes that lead directly to your home. That is not where fracking is happening. Fracking is done out where there isn't public water and sewer. People have drinking wells for their homes.
This article is saying that fracking chemicals are getting into the same water that is feeding the wells to people's homes. It is the fracking companies' responsibilities to keep their chemicals out of our drinking water wells.
Like the parent post said, "Musk is changing the world": Solar City lets you buy your solar panels for zero down and "lets you pay off your loan with monthly payments based on the electricity your system produces." So it ends up that the electric bill plus the Solar City bill add up to less than the old electric bill. You don't need a pile of money lying around to buy a modern home solar system. Non-wealthy people who do not care about the environment are signing up with Solar City simply because they'll pay less for utilities.
So, yeah, Musk is changing the world--he's causing people who don't care about the environment to put solar panels on their house that a few years ago would have made zero financial sense. In case you haven't noticed, he also made an all electric vehicle drooled over by people who don't care about saving gas.
I think this paper is saying it is worse than this. Only about 5 percent of studies with 5% chance of results by random chance should be wrong. But this is saying that 60% weren't replicated. It's almost as if the researchers feel pressured to publish papers and they have a hard time publishing papers without results.
Ummm, like, I think you've missed the point. The researchers did not say that 100% of people who aren't "Millennial" hate Snowden. They showed that, looking at one metric--age--the percentage of people who appreciate Snowden has a clear trend. And they are saying that this particular trend matters because Millennials will soon be running the country.
If the researchers looked at the demographic of "people who comment on/. articles," which demographic cuts across all age groups, I am guessing you will find a large chunk of the 26% of people over age 55 with a positive opinion of Snowden residing here. But this is not a demographic that the researchers were interested in, because they are looking at who will be running the country in the looming future, not people who will still be sitting in front of their computers in their Mom's basement.
I always find it amazing that these huge companies with enormous public domains don't have a person who's job description includes managing all of their certs and making sure they don't expire.
I bet they do. That's probably the problem--some human screwed up. I am surprised thee huge TECHNOLOGY companies with enormous public domains don't have an automated system to keep an eye on these things and auto-renew or alert a human or something. Heck; maybe they do and the alert failed, or alert to human went to spam, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Four digits gives 11m squares, which is close enough for anyone making deliveries to figure out the exact location within that square. If you want a 5th digit, you now have precision that can tell the difference between trees.
I think the point of the 3 ft squares is for very compact places, like slums in India, where there might be several "houses" in an 11 m square. So, to be comparable, it appears that you'd need that 5th digit. But it isn't really 5 digits. It's 5 digits after the decimal place. In each direction. Plus you need something to indicate direction (for brevity, I'd think +/- would be better than N/S/E/W). So, my address is XX.XXXXX,-XX.XXXXX, according to Google Maps. That makes 14 characters to memorize assuming I don't waste any brain power on the decimals and negative sign. This is approximately double the number of digits most people's brains supposedly prefer.
From what I gather from the comments, the benefits of the current GPS system are:
1) It already has a foothold.
2) It's easy to tell by comparing gps units where two places are compared to each other.
3) It can be more or less precise by adding or removing digits.
4) The digits easily translate to other languages (or, rather, they need no translation)
The benefits of the 3x3 system are:
1) It's really easy to remember the "address" for a very specific place.
The drawbacks I'm hearing for GPS are:
1) It's hard to remember the "address."
I think I'm now convinced that the GPS system is better. For example, in the 3x3 system, you can't say its in the vicinity of rabbit.tree.hook without having to look up what on earth (literally) that means. You need a whole new address for every language. In English, my address might be tree.rock.squirrel, while in spanish my address might be tango.juevo.puerta (because they can't use translations of the same words for the same place--here aren't enough words in the other languages and also words often don't translate cleanly). I was playing around with the map--squares very close to each other have completely different "addresses." And there is no way to address a larger quadrant, which is trivial in GPS by simply removing a digit.
I understand the issue with a GPS user's device having accuracy problems, but I don't see how the 3x3 system solves that. I think the versatility of the GPS system compared to the 3x3 system makes it ultimately superior, despite the comparative difficulty of memorizing "addresses."
2 comments in response to this:
1) The 3 words narrow things down to 3x3 foot squares. The GPS coordinates narrow things down to approximately a housing block. I'm not sure how many digits it would take to get GPS down to the specificity of 3x3 foot squares, assuming it is possible. The point the creators are trying to make is that more detail is needed for most places.
2) I'll give you 60 seconds to memorize the GPS coordinates of a housing block versus 60 seconds to memorize 3 English words. Guess what will be easier for 99% of the population.
I am not a security expert, but my thoughts are that "Anonymous" isn't really hurting anything.
1) An article from The Guardian speculating that Anonymous might be doing more harm than good does not equate to national intelligence agencies complaining that Anonymous is doing more harm than good.
2) If intelligence agencies are watching Twitter accounts for covert intelligence, that is idiotic. Twitter posts are public, easy to find, and unencrypted (I suppose you could hide a secret message in a Twitter post, but anyway...). It seems to me that the Rickrolling is perfect for disrupting ISIS sponsored Twitter recruitment accounts. When it comes to actually planning attacks, I imagine this makes no difference whatsoever--that is more likely done by ISIS on encrypted non-public channels that the intelligence agencies are trying to find and decrypt.
And also, why is Baidu interested in this information?
Is anyone else surprised that Baidu was willing and able to conduct and publish this study without intervention from the Chinese government?
Interesting--I did not realize that. I have several Roku boxes and I do use Prime on them through the official Prime app (side note--I wonder if lack of the app in the UK is due to the movie studios). So, this raises another interesting point, though: could Amazon make the Apple TV and Google thinger (whatever it's called) less attractive to people who have prime and not Netflix by simply pulling its Prime app?
Because it's still selling Roku stuff?
I rated Bennet Hasselton 5 stars in Professional "delivered crack to children in a professional and timely manner"
Exactly. Who decides what a positive review is? Anything ranked 5 stars? So, if I mark 5 stars and say terrible things, it is open for all to see?
Also, how can I look at the bad reviews about myself in order to determine whether I want to risk them becoming public? Sign up? Which automatically makes them visible for all?
And then there is this:
You can’t opt out — once someone puts your name in the Peeple system, it’s there unless you violate the site’s terms of service.
So the only people not in the system are the ones who violate the terms of service? Well, plan on your terms of service being flagrantly violated.
And, the founders say that people can report inaccurate information in reviews. I hope they're prepared to employ an army to consider accuracy (and how on earth are they going to actually determine accuracy?)....
Perhaps the GP tried an early version of Windows 10--perhaps it didn't default to tablet mode on tablets at that time. The Verge article says it does now. Of course, maybe it isn't functioning properly....
I don't see why people think IE can be "killed." Until you convince curmudgeony old people (like governments) whose web-based tools break on anything other than IE to pay green money to update their websites, IE will stick around. And, since some people (mostly governments) will never be willing to pay money to fix something that "isn't broken" (as long as you use it on IE), IE will never, ever be completely dispensable.
I guess you haven't found the "tablet mode" feature.
they need to recruit some of the absolutely terrible drivers we've all seen
I humbly volunteer.
Aren't humans a problem with a lot of important hacks anymore. For example:
http://appleinsider.com/articl...
If not for a human at Apple, this hack wouldn't have happened. The authentication code was intended to prevent this issue.
I was listening to Star Talk again last night and they happened again to talk about dark matter. Neal said that, whatever dark matter is, the apparent characteristics are that it does not interact with normal matter or with itself except by exhibiting gravitational force. Normal matter, he said, attracts other normal matter via gravity and when that attraction brings the objects together, they stick together. Whereas dark matter exerts the gravitational force but does not "stick" to normal matter or to itself.
It seems to me that a black hole is made of up exceedingly dense normal matter, and does "stick" to normal matter in that the normal matter drawn into the black hole becomes a part of the mass of the black hole. So, I don't think that a lot of super massive black holes would exhibit the characteristics observed of dark matter.
My recollection of what Neal DeGrasse Tyson said on one of his podcasts is that matter we cannot see wouldn't explain the "missing mass" because experiments indicate that "dark matter" does not interact with normal matter or photons, except in the form of gravity. I had thought for some time, "perhaps dark matter is just matter for which we have no evidence of its existence because we cannot see it." A hidden black hole would fit the bill there. But what was said on the show completely dispelled that notion. The problem here is that I am a non-scientist and don't quite recall what he said in the episode. Real scientists with knowledge of this--please weigh in!
As a footnote--Wikipedia says that a small portion of "dark matter" seems to be just regular matter we cannot see, but mostly it seems to not fit the characteristics of regular matter.
Follow-up question--could a huge number of supermassive black holes cause the effects we see from earth? My reasoning suggests the answer would be "no." The thought process being that, if scientists have been theorizing a larger number of supermassive black holes for some time and also wondering what this "dark matter" stuff is, more of those scientists would have said, "perhaps dark matter consists of those theorized black holes we haven't seen." I think this hasn't happened because scientists who actually know this stuff (not me) had already concluded that black holes don't fit the mugshot.
Many of the roads of have no speed limits. That's legitimate enough for me. Also, it is the sister isle to Thomas the Tank Engine's (fictional) Sodor, which might be reason enough for someone else.
Numbers 1 and 2 are easily addressed. Number 3 perhaps as well, but I only have ideas for 1 and 2.
1) No windows
Problem:
It's a pity if you have any sort of claustrophobia.
Solution: Use LCD screens instead.
2) No air
Problem:
[T]he device doesn't contain any onboard air supply . . . if the device loses power for any reason (electrical, mechanical, computational) then you better be able to hold your breath for a long long time.
Solution: Add an emergency air supply.
Anyone with ideas on Number 3?
My understanding is that modern household water wells generally use reverse osmosis systems. Water quality from drinking wells varies widely depending on the location and quality of the well. But (1) they aren't 100% effective, nor can they be against unanticipated chemicals that weren't being pumped into the ground en masse at the time the well was designed, and (2) I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade my drinking water well filter to handle chemicals used in fracking. Fracking companies should be not contaminating my drinking water.
Who markets the water for the drinking well at a person's home?
You're thinking of the local water company with it's water filtering plants and pipes that lead directly to your home. That is not where fracking is happening. Fracking is done out where there isn't public water and sewer. People have drinking wells for their homes.
This article is saying that fracking chemicals are getting into the same water that is feeding the wells to people's homes. It is the fracking companies' responsibilities to keep their chemicals out of our drinking water wells.
Like the parent post said, "Musk is changing the world":
Solar City lets you buy your solar panels for zero down and "lets you pay off your loan with monthly payments based on the electricity your system produces." So it ends up that the electric bill plus the Solar City bill add up to less than the old electric bill. You don't need a pile of money lying around to buy a modern home solar system. Non-wealthy people who do not care about the environment are signing up with Solar City simply because they'll pay less for utilities.
So, yeah, Musk is changing the world--he's causing people who don't care about the environment to put solar panels on their house that a few years ago would have made zero financial sense. In case you haven't noticed, he also made an all electric vehicle drooled over by people who don't care about saving gas.
I think this paper is saying it is worse than this. Only about 5 percent of studies with 5% chance of results by random chance should be wrong. But this is saying that 60% weren't replicated. It's almost as if the researchers feel pressured to publish papers and they have a hard time publishing papers without results.
These frakking polls are bovine scat.
Ummm, like, I think you've missed the point. The researchers did not say that 100% of people who aren't "Millennial" hate Snowden. They showed that, looking at one metric--age--the percentage of people who appreciate Snowden has a clear trend. And they are saying that this particular trend matters because Millennials will soon be running the country.
If the researchers looked at the demographic of "people who comment on /. articles," which demographic cuts across all age groups, I am guessing you will find a large chunk of the 26% of people over age 55 with a positive opinion of Snowden residing here. But this is not a demographic that the researchers were interested in, because they are looking at who will be running the country in the looming future, not people who will still be sitting in front of their computers in their Mom's basement.
Sorry I have no mod points, but this is funny.
I always find it amazing that these huge companies with enormous public domains don't have a person who's job description includes managing all of their certs and making sure they don't expire.
I bet they do. That's probably the problem--some human screwed up. I am surprised thee huge TECHNOLOGY companies with enormous public domains don't have an automated system to keep an eye on these things and auto-renew or alert a human or something. Heck; maybe they do and the alert failed, or alert to human went to spam, etc.
This looks to me just like Square Cash.