There is a law restricting calls to people who register their phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Pai is letting the phone companies know that they need to ensure this law is fully in effect for mobile phones as well.
Hmmm... I thought double the bandwidth allowed double the bits, and it's kind of independent of the carrier frequency. A 1 MHz bandwidth at 10 MHz, 1 GHz, and 100 GHz has the same information capacity - 1 MHz of data (and you can use encoding and quadrature to increase that, but it's equivalent regardless of baseband carrier).
So then why is Tesla saying that they are being investigated about claimed production numbers? Remember, this isn't a media outlet claiming, this is Tesla stating the investigation in their own filings. Or do we say this is nothing, like Musk's tweet about going private, that ended up getting him canned from the role of Chairman, adding two new independent board members, and fining Tesla and Musk $20MM each?
So, a CEO coming out and publicly stating they are building 30% more cars than they really are, and stating that sales are 50% more than expected, even though they have data which disputes the very claims, is not guilty of fraud and stock manipulation? CEOs and companies are fined when they mislead investors by overstating estimated revenues or understating risks.
Being declared domestic terrorists, forcing others to drive where they illegally dictate you can drive (and beating on cars that they feel "offend" them), using violence as the means of communication, and demanding ideological purity to their own goals. Pretty much full-on Nazi-esque behavior.
There are a ton of Nazis running around. Except they dress in black, wear masks/bandanas over their faces, use violence to push their goals, claim sole right to dictate who gets to do what (usually based solely on race and gender), and call themselves, quaintly enough, "Anti Fascists".
It matters when it comes to lawsuits. That transgender, self-identifying woman you just hired into your company will probably NOT assist you in a gender-discrimination case. In California, if you're a public company with 5 board members, 2 of them must be female. If one of your board members has XY chromosomes but identifies as a woman - does that count as one of the two you must legally have?
With the Government demanding to know the racial and gender breakdown of my employees (and now, in California, the gender breakdown of my board members), this becomes critical. If I hire a bunch of brogrammers, but half of them believe they are women - does that mean I have a diverse gender group of employees? If the 5 board members of my company consist of 3 self-identifying, XY-chromosome men, and two self-identifying, XY-chromosome women, does that mean I have the proper ratio of females that California demands? If the draft fired up again and I chose to identify as a woman even though I have XY chromosomes and male genitalia - does that mean I am exempt from the draft?
If you put your trust in peer review without data, then you might as well put your faith in the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man coming down to give you a rainbow-farting unicorn!
The number of scientists doesn't matter; the quality if the science does. That's the point - the quality is extremely poor, even to the point of saying the current climate is literally defined by the projected next 15 years of weather that has not yet happened. That is NOT science - that is faith. That you cannot understand this simple point, or choose to ignore it, speaks volumes.
Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.
The quantity of scientists doesn't matter; the quality of their science does. And that is severely lacking, and anyone with an education could understand that if they just looked at the data objectively.
Climate is the measure of average weather over a period of about 30 years. That's the scientific definition of the term.
Not per the new IPCC report; climate is now the measure of the average of the last 15 years and the predicted average of the upcoming 15 years, meaning climate is now what the models say it is. Does that sound right to you? Remember - I linked to that inside the IPCC's report itself.!
There are many models because it's a very complicated system. Very very complicated. Different models are used to measure different things, and they do so in different ways. The models are then averaged together, and they *do* accurately fit past climate patterns, which means they're likely to fit future ones as well.
Check those graphs I linked to again. The "average" of those ~100 models is much hotter than the actual data. They only fit past climate, because they are tuned to do so. But when you run them forward (like, take the latest tuned model, and input data from 1980) they do not fit "future" data. The models drift away. That's the crux of the matter. The ONLY way the models "fit" anything is by making them fit ALL the past data. Building a model on the past data, and then letting it start running with a fixed set of actual data from, say, 40 years ago, and you end up with a result much hotter than current conditions. The models can only hind-cast, they cannot forecast!
The charts that you're linking to are irrelevant. The first one is from some conspiracy theorist. The second I don't even understand, or know where it's from. What does "structural uncertainty in mid-troposphere satellite temperatures" mean? What does it prove?
The charts are actual data plotted on model results. If you cannot take a few minutes to learn at least that, then why are you even arguing about climate? Just throw up your hands, admit your ignorance and willful desire to remain ignorant, and state "I choose to trust the IPCC regardless of what the data actually states". Because - as I linked in this very post - the IPCC now considers future model results as important to defining the climate today as the past actual, empirical data.
You should consider taking a class or several science classes to understand the scientific process, and how to think critically. You're so far away from understanding actual science that I don't even know where to tell you to start. Maybe start with your *accredited* local community college and take some basic "what is science" classes.
It might surprise you to know that not only am I a published author, but I have taught post-grad level courses in acoustics and marine and fisheries research. I defined quite a bit of the standards in fisheries sciences used by the US, Canada, and most of the EU. I have a BSEE, MS Physics, and Ph.D. in Technology Engineering. All from accredited schools. After my SONAR and ultrasound career, I've moved into consumer electronics and audio and currently work on technology roadmapping and R&D for a top audio corporation. Most test gear manufacturers in the audio world know who I am, and I consult with many of them on products - meaning I help define how things are measured, not just what things are built.
And it is precisely because of my strong scientific background in research, development, and theory that I am VERY skeptical of the data. Unlike you, I actually go out and learn things instead of throwing up my hands and saying "I don't understand what structural uncertainty means!" Try an education yourself - you might actually open up your mind.
First off, the IPCC models are quite sound. I have no data to post because I haven't done any experiments. I've read other peoples' experiments, but I haven't read all ~20-30k and neither have you. That's why the IPCC exists.
Which model? Because they scatter all over the place, from 0.1 deg C/century to 0.8 deg C/century. And the actual data is well down near the 0.1 deg C/century models. Furthermore, not a single IPCC model has any inclusion or calculation of the amount of global temperature change that is natural; they ALL assume that 100% of all change is man-made, and yet we know that is NOT the case. So if we're down around 0.1 deg C/century, and natural climate change is at that same level - how much is from man?
The reality is that the IPCC doesn't know how much warming is natural, and its own models do not reflect or support the extremist claims made, NOR do they match the actual data. Furthermore, the IPCC even has fudged the definition of today's climate! The IPCC now considers today's climate to be:
Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.
Do you see that? They have now redefined today's climate to include their own future projections at a measure equal to past data. Future model results are considered as reliable and important as actual data - even though I have shown you that the models are all over the place and do NOT match past data. But somehow they are "good enough" to use to determine today's climate as well as the future climate - data be damned!
If you choose to ignore the actual facts, and you refuse to think critically, then there's nothing to be said. You really are going on simple faith at that point - not science. Science requires skepticism, science requires logic and reason, and right now - the IPCC is showing none of that, and your blind acceptance of their statements shows the same. Faith, not science.
Putting pins in the phone is the WORST thing you can do, you want the pins/wipers (those are the parts that wear out) on the cable, since that is cheaper to replace. Pads go in the phone, pins in the cable. Not the way that Apple did it, which is backwards.
You've yet to post any data; I have. And somehow I don't know what I'm talking about and need to be explained to. AND, I am to take the word of tens of thousands of scientists - whose own models do not agree with data - and believe them. You need to check out what Einstein said about the 100 scientists who thought he was wrong: it would only take one, to show data contrary to Einstein's position, to prove the issue.
Because that is $90 billion, and Apple is cheap. They could just pay the $7 billion in back royalties (royalties that Apple customers ultimately already paid for), and be done with it, too. But that's not the Apple way. The Apple way is to extort every penny you can out of the entire supply chain, let the rest of the industry do all the R&D/innovation, and then gallop in on unicorns and claim they invented it all for the betterment of all mankind at shockingly low prices (never mind they are over priced), because their legion of followers will accept whatever comes down the pipe as the Latest Greatest Thing.
At most of my client's offices (these are big Fortune 500 companies) most of the conference rooms are HDMI or VGA. All the test gear is pretty much Ethernet or USB. And I often plug my headphones into my laptop. Only a few have wireless interfaces (usually for the Apple folks), and we sit through 3-4 resets of video syncing every meeting as the wireless display just drops out.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is we ignore the next two, which are just as important. One out of three doesn't cut it...
Paper ballot, voter ID, absentee ballots need to be applied for each election. No need for anything else.
There is a law restricting calls to people who register their phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Pai is letting the phone companies know that they need to ensure this law is fully in effect for mobile phones as well.
Hmmm... I thought double the bandwidth allowed double the bits, and it's kind of independent of the carrier frequency. A 1 MHz bandwidth at 10 MHz, 1 GHz, and 100 GHz has the same information capacity - 1 MHz of data (and you can use encoding and quadrature to increase that, but it's equivalent regardless of baseband carrier).
So then why is Tesla saying that they are being investigated about claimed production numbers? Remember, this isn't a media outlet claiming, this is Tesla stating the investigation in their own filings. Or do we say this is nothing, like Musk's tweet about going private, that ended up getting him canned from the role of Chairman, adding two new independent board members, and fining Tesla and Musk $20MM each?
So, a CEO coming out and publicly stating they are building 30% more cars than they really are, and stating that sales are 50% more than expected, even though they have data which disputes the very claims, is not guilty of fraud and stock manipulation? CEOs and companies are fined when they mislead investors by overstating estimated revenues or understating risks.
Modern journalism isn't about facts, it's about advocacy.
It is when it's about production targets and volumes which directly relate to revenue and profit of a company. Then it's considered fraud...
Being declared domestic terrorists, forcing others to drive where they illegally dictate you can drive (and beating on cars that they feel "offend" them), using violence as the means of communication, and demanding ideological purity to their own goals. Pretty much full-on Nazi-esque behavior.
There are a ton of Nazis running around. Except they dress in black, wear masks/bandanas over their faces, use violence to push their goals, claim sole right to dictate who gets to do what (usually based solely on race and gender), and call themselves, quaintly enough, "Anti Fascists".
Well, they can also hide their data and not publish it, just the "processed" results...
What about Female democrats? Republicans? Socialists?
Well, it's not like coming under sniper fire in Bosnia, or spending Christmas in Cambodia during a war, but a fake bomb is right up there!
It matters when it comes to lawsuits. That transgender, self-identifying woman you just hired into your company will probably NOT assist you in a gender-discrimination case. In California, if you're a public company with 5 board members, 2 of them must be female. If one of your board members has XY chromosomes but identifies as a woman - does that count as one of the two you must legally have?
With the Government demanding to know the racial and gender breakdown of my employees (and now, in California, the gender breakdown of my board members), this becomes critical. If I hire a bunch of brogrammers, but half of them believe they are women - does that mean I have a diverse gender group of employees? If the 5 board members of my company consist of 3 self-identifying, XY-chromosome men, and two self-identifying, XY-chromosome women, does that mean I have the proper ratio of females that California demands? If the draft fired up again and I chose to identify as a woman even though I have XY chromosomes and male genitalia - does that mean I am exempt from the draft?
LOL - peer review? Really? You really have no clue how that works, do you? It's pretty much worthless; even journals say its flawed and when you have hundreds of "peer reviewed" papers yanked because of fraud, and even fake papers being published even though they are "peer reviewed", you really are out there on faith. Let me ask you - would you expect a paper to be peer reviewed and published even if the data was not provided - just the summary? Because that's happened plenty in the whole AGW debate - hundreds of papers published with ZERO data provided, just summaries and conclusions.
If you put your trust in peer review without data, then you might as well put your faith in the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man coming down to give you a rainbow-farting unicorn!
USB-C has fixed contacts in the middle plane of the jack; the plug (the cable) has the sprung connectors.
The number of scientists doesn't matter; the quality if the science does. That's the point - the quality is extremely poor, even to the point of saying the current climate is literally defined by the projected next 15 years of weather that has not yet happened. That is NOT science - that is faith. That you cannot understand this simple point, or choose to ignore it, speaks volumes.
As Albert Einstein famously said when there were 100 scientists who wrote a book about why he was wrong:
Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.
The quantity of scientists doesn't matter; the quality of their science does. And that is severely lacking, and anyone with an education could understand that if they just looked at the data objectively.
MEMS oscillators are significantly more reliable than quartz oscillators.
Until someone spills the helium, that is...
Climate is the measure of average weather over a period of about 30 years. That's the scientific definition of the term.
Not per the new IPCC report; climate is now the measure of the average of the last 15 years and the predicted average of the upcoming 15 years, meaning climate is now what the models say it is. Does that sound right to you? Remember - I linked to that inside the IPCC's report itself.!
There are many models because it's a very complicated system. Very very complicated. Different models are used to measure different things, and they do so in different ways. The models are then averaged together, and they *do* accurately fit past climate patterns, which means they're likely to fit future ones as well.
Check those graphs I linked to again. The "average" of those ~100 models is much hotter than the actual data. They only fit past climate, because they are tuned to do so. But when you run them forward (like, take the latest tuned model, and input data from 1980) they do not fit "future" data. The models drift away. That's the crux of the matter. The ONLY way the models "fit" anything is by making them fit ALL the past data. Building a model on the past data, and then letting it start running with a fixed set of actual data from, say, 40 years ago, and you end up with a result much hotter than current conditions. The models can only hind-cast, they cannot forecast!
The charts that you're linking to are irrelevant. The first one is from some conspiracy theorist. The second I don't even understand, or know where it's from. What does "structural uncertainty in mid-troposphere satellite temperatures" mean? What does it prove?
The charts are actual data plotted on model results. If you cannot take a few minutes to learn at least that, then why are you even arguing about climate? Just throw up your hands, admit your ignorance and willful desire to remain ignorant, and state "I choose to trust the IPCC regardless of what the data actually states". Because - as I linked in this very post - the IPCC now considers future model results as important to defining the climate today as the past actual, empirical data.
You should consider taking a class or several science classes to understand the scientific process, and how to think critically. You're so far away from understanding actual science that I don't even know where to tell you to start. Maybe start with your *accredited* local community college and take some basic "what is science" classes.
It might surprise you to know that not only am I a published author, but I have taught post-grad level courses in acoustics and marine and fisheries research. I defined quite a bit of the standards in fisheries sciences used by the US, Canada, and most of the EU. I have a BSEE, MS Physics, and Ph.D. in Technology Engineering. All from accredited schools. After my SONAR and ultrasound career, I've moved into consumer electronics and audio and currently work on technology roadmapping and R&D for a top audio corporation. Most test gear manufacturers in the audio world know who I am, and I consult with many of them on products - meaning I help define how things are measured, not just what things are built.
And it is precisely because of my strong scientific background in research, development, and theory that I am VERY skeptical of the data. Unlike you, I actually go out and learn things instead of throwing up my hands and saying "I don't understand what structural uncertainty means!" Try an education yourself - you might actually open up your mind.
First off, the IPCC models are quite sound. I have no data to post because I haven't done any experiments. I've read other peoples' experiments, but I haven't read all ~20-30k and neither have you. That's why the IPCC exists.
Which model? Because they scatter all over the place, from 0.1 deg C/century to 0.8 deg C/century. And the actual data is well down near the 0.1 deg C/century models. Furthermore, not a single IPCC model has any inclusion or calculation of the amount of global temperature change that is natural; they ALL assume that 100% of all change is man-made, and yet we know that is NOT the case. So if we're down around 0.1 deg C/century, and natural climate change is at that same level - how much is from man?
The reality is that the IPCC doesn't know how much warming is natural, and its own models do not reflect or support the extremist claims made, NOR do they match the actual data. Furthermore, the IPCC even has fudged the definition of today's climate! The IPCC now considers today's climate to be:
Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.
Do you see that? They have now redefined today's climate to include their own future projections at a measure equal to past data. Future model results are considered as reliable and important as actual data - even though I have shown you that the models are all over the place and do NOT match past data. But somehow they are "good enough" to use to determine today's climate as well as the future climate - data be damned!
If you choose to ignore the actual facts, and you refuse to think critically, then there's nothing to be said. You really are going on simple faith at that point - not science. Science requires skepticism, science requires logic and reason, and right now - the IPCC is showing none of that, and your blind acceptance of their statements shows the same. Faith, not science.
Putting pins in the phone is the WORST thing you can do, you want the pins/wipers (those are the parts that wear out) on the cable, since that is cheaper to replace. Pads go in the phone, pins in the cable. Not the way that Apple did it, which is backwards.
You've yet to post any data; I have. And somehow I don't know what I'm talking about and need to be explained to. AND, I am to take the word of tens of thousands of scientists - whose own models do not agree with data - and believe them. You need to check out what Einstein said about the 100 scientists who thought he was wrong: it would only take one, to show data contrary to Einstein's position, to prove the issue.
Because that is $90 billion, and Apple is cheap. They could just pay the $7 billion in back royalties (royalties that Apple customers ultimately already paid for), and be done with it, too. But that's not the Apple way. The Apple way is to extort every penny you can out of the entire supply chain, let the rest of the industry do all the R&D/innovation, and then gallop in on unicorns and claim they invented it all for the betterment of all mankind at shockingly low prices (never mind they are over priced), because their legion of followers will accept whatever comes down the pipe as the Latest Greatest Thing.
At most of my client's offices (these are big Fortune 500 companies) most of the conference rooms are HDMI or VGA. All the test gear is pretty much Ethernet or USB. And I often plug my headphones into my laptop. Only a few have wireless interfaces (usually for the Apple folks), and we sit through 3-4 resets of video syncing every meeting as the wireless display just drops out.