Want to bet that this opt-out doesn't apply to any of the apps Microsoft bundles with Windows RT / 8?
It doesn't apply to any tracking Microsoft does because even though they've gone so far as the standard-breaking client-side DNT-by-default in IE10, they don't support DNT at all server-side on the sites they operate that track user data.
This is only true for Windows RT. Not for Windows 8 pro. I could be wrong, but everything I'm seeing online seems to agree. Windows RT = ARM architecture where apps can only be acquired through the App store, and all apps in the app store are Metro. Windows 8 Pro = x86 where I can write my own programs and they can be either desktop or metro and I can freely give them to friends or as web downloads like traditional windows.
Everything I've seen indicates that, even on x86, Metro apps can only be installed through the app store (although I've seen notes -- ironically, in an article about new ChromeOS management facilities -- that MS intends to provide enterprise management tools that will allow enterprise users to load in-house Metro apps outside of the Microsoft Store, but those would be licensed separately from the desktop OS, not something that most Windows users will have access to and be able to freely use.
Streaming is like radio, but instead of it being free for you with record companies giving the radio companies payola, you'll be paying the streaming companies.
Radio: free to listen, paid for by ads MTV (for modern versions, add appropriate suffix to get music videos rather than reality TV): free to watch music videos, paid for by ads Streaming Music via Pandora: free to listen, paid for by ads Streaming Music Videos via Vevo: free to watch, paid for by ads
Sure, there's options where you pay rather than advertisers, but I think the close parallel to radio/TV from the listener/viewer side -- free to the user and paid for by ads -- is going to remain a widely available and widely used model. $0 is a compelling price point.
The headline implies that US students have more difficulty with reasoning skills than other students as a whole, or that this difficulty is unique to students from the US.
It may be valid to infer poor performance in comparison to some standard from the headline (which, by its express terms, is not comparative), but it would not be justified to infer that the standard must be the performance of students outside the US (which both your suggested options -- which are both really the same comparison phrased differently -- assume.)
Funny that this error in reasoning both appears and is modded +5 insightful on a thread about problems with reasoning skills...
Out of a thousand elementary school kids, how many will become scientists, engineers, etc?
Reasoning skills aren't only important to scientists and engineers. They are also important to (and this list is not exhaustive) managers and administrators, accountants, lawyers, teachers, counselors, law enforcement officers, soldiers, guardians of children, people managing households, and -- in a democratic society -- citizens.
The writing sounds bias to me. It said that at grade 4 & 8, White kids have the highest score. Then at grade 12, there is no significant difference. To me, these two parts give different meaning -- when white kids are better, praise them but when they are lower generalize them to be equal.
Or, you know, maybe they used a standard test of statistical significance with an alpha value of 0.05 (which is what the report, in somewhat dumbed-down language, seems to say they did, see p. 19 of the report, under "Interpreting the Results"), and while there was an observed different in the mean results at 12th grade between API and White students, they weren't statistically significant by that standard.
Not that I think this is racist, but I don't feel comfortable with a science report which contains hidden message or bias.
Applying a standard statistical test to determine if measured differences in the sample are likely enough to represent real differences in the underlying population from which the sample is drawn isn't "hidden message" or "bias" (well, I guess its could be a hidden message of "you should only report things as being meaningfully different if the results provide a reason to believe they represent a real difference", or a bias against reporting meaningless results.)
If the facts don't line up with your theory, a normal person would say the facts are wrong or the theory is wrong (measurements and models, in this case). But cosmologists just invent outlandish theories and particles that can't be proven or disproven.
You mostly have that backwards. "Normal people" invent outlandish untestable explanations -- often with reference to supernatural intelligences -- for unexplained phenomena all the time, whereas the "mirror particle" hypothesis makes quite specific, testable predictions (and specific tests are recommended in the paper.)
I think I'll go with the incorrect measurements, again.
Dismissive assumptions are so much more scientific than actual testing.
As long as I can remember, most people listened to music on the radio -- people who dominantly listened to purchased music have always been the exception.
Show me another summer tent-pole film being shot in 48 FPS. Are theaters expected to break even on their hardware investment from their take on one film?
Most modern theaters with digital equipment have variable frame rate setups which let them maximize their ability to rent out the auditoriums for other uses, where video presentations don't conform to the movie industry's 24fps standard. So the additional hardware investment to support the framerate of the 48fps The Hobbit (or the 60fps Avatar sequels Cameron has announced) would be zero. Which is pretty easy to break even on.
I'd think a 24fps 3D projector should have no problem showing a 48fps 2d movie- Just remove the polorizing filters and have each projector interleave every other frame a half step apart. Am I wrong?
Maybe, but the push for high frame rate is connected to 3D, which is why the big stories about films planning to use it are the Jackson's The Hobbit (which is 3D @ 48fps) and Cameron's Avatare sequels (3D @ 60fps).
Remember: 24fps was chosen as a reasonable minimum that would fool the eye (not look like constant flickering) but be as slow as possible to make the equipment cheaper to produce and especially to compensate for the insensitivity of early film stock which needed as long of an exposure as possible to register the action without excessively bright lights...
And, incidentally, was an upgrade to the earlier 18fps (and even earlier 16fps) that were standard during the silent film era.
So the film industry has realized that no one really wants 3D so they are desperate to try to find something to replace it with that they can use to justify inflated prices.
While high frame rate (HFR) has been tried many times in the past and proved too expensive to catch on (though the additional expensi, the current push for HFR (both the 48fps for The Hobbit and the 60fps James Cameron has said he is using for Avatar sequels) is largely tied to 3D, not as an alternative, but as a means of addressing the downsides of 3D, as the queasiness some people feel with 24fps 3D is reduced with higher frame rates.
I thought one of the defining characteristics of a netbook was a smaller screen.
"Smaller" compared to the high-end for laptops yes, but the high end for WinXP netbooks was 12.1" (due to Windows XP Home UItra-Low Cost PC licensing limitations from Microsoft); the defining features were generally those smaller screens, network or peripheral dependence for loading software (due to lack of a built-in optical drive), and network or peripheral dependence for large data storage (due to small onboard HDD or even smaller SSD as the main mass storage unit) -- those last two features are the key defining features from which the "netbook" gets its name.
Now, netbooks feature 10.2" or smaller screens because of Microsoft Windows 7 Starter licensing arrangements, which make that version of Windows (and its low-cost license) only available for computers with certain specifications, including 10.2" or smaller screens.
It's unfortunate because Seagate doesn't *have* a consumer SSD product. In the end "growth" on it's own doesn't mean much. It's about margin and profitability, and when you only grow 100% in a market where your competitors are growing by 2000%+ you are going to lose that market.
That might be true, but its irrelevant, since the SSD market and the hybrid market are different markets. When your market is growing at 100% year-to-year and you have no competition in your market, it doesn't really matter than some other market is growing at 2000%. In fact, it can be better to be in the slower-growing market with no competitors than the faster growing market with more players -- because, as you note, growth on its own doesn't mean much, its about margin and profitability, and the thing that kills margins and profitability is competition driving prices down.
I'm sure you could have said "Sony Betamax had 100% sales growth" back in the 80's when VHS was growing by 1000%... how'd that work out?
Betamax and VHS were much less targetted at different usage roles than pure SSDs and hybrid SSDs, for one thing. For another, even in losing the format war, I don't know that Sony did at all badly financially with Betamax.
New numbers show hybrid drives, which combine NAND flash with spinning disk, will double in sales from 1 million to 2 million units this year. Unfortunately for Seagate â" the only manufacturer of hybrids â" solid-state drive sales are expected to hit 18 million units this year and 69 million by 2016.
How is this unfortunate for Seagate? Sure, more pure SSDs are being sold than hybrids, but there is more competition in that market, whereas hybrids are a market Seagate completely owns that is expecting 100% year-to-year growth. Seems to me, there is no bad news for Seagate in that.
Reread the linked article there. It doesn't say anything about cocoa farmers. It says something about coca farmers. There's a bit of a difference between the two crops.
they've proven to be safe, often more nutritious, and grow with less pesticides and run-off into the ecosystem.
Each of those statements alone is true of some GM crops (particularly, crops engineered specifically to increase quantities of a particular nutrient are often "more nutritious", and those engineered specifically to resist locally-prominent pests have been shown to reduce the quantity of broad-spectrum pesticides used and that therefore contaminate the environment.) They aren't generally true of the same GM crops, and for many GM crops, the opposite of one or more of those statements is true. For instance, Monsanto's best-known GM product -- RoundUp-Ready crops -- which are expressly designed to resist a particular broad-spectrum herbicide, which Monsanto also has a big business selling -- and, until the patent expired in 2000, also a legally-protected monopoly -- have been shown to vastly increase the use of (and, consequently, the environmental impacts of) the broad spectrum herbicide.
That's the responsibility of the working people in China.
Ascribing particular, though perhaps not exclusive, responsibility for political prisoners in a country to the people in the country (on the principle that they are most responsible for holding their government accountable) is understandable.
I don't get the limitation to working people, however. Why would people who have a job be any more responsible for their government's actions than, say, pensioners, capitalists, and/or the unemployed?
These meebo folk could've helped on creating Googles all in one messaging solution that works on the desktop or mobile - putting the meebo team to Google plus is a waste
What makes you think that Google+ isn't intended to include Google's all-in-one messaging solution that works on desktop-mobile-and-everywhere-else?
Which, TV shows and action movies aside, is a pretty rare thing.
just needs to hang out at the local shooting range and collect someone else's brass casings before they commit a crime. After they commit their crime, they collect their own shells, and toss out the other person's shells.
If, that is, they want to provide an extra lead back to themselves that wouldn't be there if they didn't do that, sure.
Look, all the "microstamping makes it easy to frame" arguments assume the same thing -- that the existence of microstamping (and, therefore, the chance that casings found at the scene will yield microstamping evidence that might have some value in tracing a crime) mean that suddenly, police departments won't bother to collect other evidence, and further won't do any follow-up on the microstamping evidence except assuming guilt of the gun owner it points to.
In reality, police are still going to collect all the evidence that they would if there wasn't a chance that the casing would yield microstamping evidence. So, if there would have been evidence pointing back to you without microstamping, it will still be there with microstamping on the casing -- no matter what gun that microstamping points to.
And if there isn't other evidence, the microstamping gives the police a starting point. Sure, they'll take a look at the person whose casings you stole. Great. Does that mean you successfully framed them? Almost certainly not.
The person those casings point to almost certainly won't have a motive for the killing, won't have been anywhere near the crime scene, and will have every motive in the world to cooperate with the police and let them know where there gun has been and, particularly, where and when it may have been fired and left casings that could have been stolen. Which just gives police a place to start looking for evidence connecting back to the real killer that they wouldn't have had if the attempted frame hadn't been made, and instead the shooter had collected his own shells and not planted someone else's shells.
Find spent casing from either your target or some random spent casings. Plant them at the sight. ????
Yeah, see, that "????" is the tricky part. The existence of microstamping evidence doesn't mean the police suddenly forget how to do everything they currently do, including interviewing people who appear to have some tie to the crime. So, yeah, you've probably managed to get the police to, among their efforts to review any surveillance covering the crime scene, gathering evidence from the crime scene, interviewing witnesses, etc., interview the person whose gun fired the casing you stole -- who, since they actually weren't at the crime scene firing the murder weapon, is quite likely to have a motive to cooperate with the police, no motive to commit the murder, an alibi to provide if the police are suspicious of them, and information about where there gun has been (and who might want to target them particularly) that helps the police narrow down who might have stolen a casing from to conceal responsibility for a murder. All of which gets added to the evidence that the police would have without microstamping to increase, rather than decrease, their opportunity to trace the crime back to the real killer.
If the other evidence (without microstamping) was already going to point back to you, microstamping won't make it go away and not point back to you.
If the other evidence wasn't going to point back to you, stealing someone else's casing may reduce the ability of microstamping to provide a direct lead back to you that wouldn't have been available without microstamping, but even then it gives a lead that once it is followed up on increases, rather than decreases, the odds of there being a trail that leads back to you compared to the absence of microstamping.
Microstamping would only work if it were 100% impossible to pick up someone else's casings at a gun range.
Actually, no. Like most techniques that can be used to link an offender to a crime, it can be effective in the real world even if there are ways in which it can, in principal, be used to mislead.
If law enforcement has faith in micro stamping, you have just successfully framed someone.
That's true of most useful techniques in crime solving. The solution for this is not to have those techniques available, its not to have "faith" that anyone one of them, standing alone, has more meaning than it actually does. Microstamping doesn't substitute to things like witness testimony, physical evidence (DNA, etc.) of the presence of the suspect at the crime scene, evidence of motive, other existing mechanisms of tying ammunition to the weapon and the weapon to the hand of a shooter, etc. Its just one more tool on top of the others.
What I'm trying to say is that the BSD license does not encourage the collegiality which I believe is the GPL's greatest strength.
BSD doesn't mandate releasing source code of derivative works that are distributed in object code form the way the GPL does; neither license does much one way or the other to "encourage collegiality", which is vastly more a factor of the particular personalities involved in a community than licenses.
Projects which attract a broad community of developers (individual or corporate) who have (or whose sponsors have) an interest, whether ideological or financial, in a more collegial development model end up with a more collegial development model. Lots of GPL proponents like to attribute what they see as successes of Linux in the OS area as an effect of the GPL specifically, but I think the idea that the particular features of the Linux community are closely tied to the GPL become hard to justify when you look at other areas where there are major GPL and non-GPL open source products (e.g., databases with MySQL on the GPL side and PostgreSQL [BSD] and SQLite [Public Domain] on the non-GPL side.)
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't apply to any tracking Microsoft does because even though they've gone so far as the standard-breaking client-side DNT-by-default in IE10, they don't support DNT at all server-side on the sites they operate that track user data.
Everything I've seen indicates that, even on x86, Metro apps can only be installed through the app store (although I've seen notes -- ironically, in an article about new ChromeOS management facilities -- that MS intends to provide enterprise management tools that will allow enterprise users to load in-house Metro apps outside of the Microsoft Store, but those would be licensed separately from the desktop OS, not something that most Windows users will have access to and be able to freely use.
Radio: free to listen, paid for by ads
MTV (for modern versions, add appropriate suffix to get music videos rather than reality TV): free to watch music videos, paid for by ads
Streaming Music via Pandora: free to listen, paid for by ads
Streaming Music Videos via Vevo: free to watch, paid for by ads
Sure, there's options where you pay rather than advertisers, but I think the close parallel to radio/TV from the listener/viewer side -- free to the user and paid for by ads -- is going to remain a widely available and widely used model. $0 is a compelling price point.
It may be valid to infer poor performance in comparison to some standard from the headline (which, by its express terms, is not comparative), but it would not be justified to infer that the standard must be the performance of students outside the US (which both your suggested options -- which are both really the same comparison phrased differently -- assume.)
Funny that this error in reasoning both appears and is modded +5 insightful on a thread about problems with reasoning skills...
Reasoning skills aren't only important to scientists and engineers. They are also important to (and this list is not exhaustive) managers and administrators, accountants, lawyers, teachers, counselors, law enforcement officers, soldiers, guardians of children, people managing households, and -- in a democratic society -- citizens.
Or, you know, maybe they used a standard test of statistical significance with an alpha value of 0.05 (which is what the report, in somewhat dumbed-down language, seems to say they did, see p. 19 of the report, under "Interpreting the Results"), and while there was an observed different in the mean results at 12th grade between API and White students, they weren't statistically significant by that standard.
Applying a standard statistical test to determine if measured differences in the sample are likely enough to represent real differences in the underlying population from which the sample is drawn isn't "hidden message" or "bias" (well, I guess its could be a hidden message of "you should only report things as being meaningfully different if the results provide a reason to believe they represent a real difference", or a bias against reporting meaningless results.)
You mostly have that backwards. "Normal people" invent outlandish untestable explanations -- often with reference to supernatural intelligences -- for unexplained phenomena all the time, whereas the "mirror particle" hypothesis makes quite specific, testable predictions (and specific tests are recommended in the paper.)
Dismissive assumptions are so much more scientific than actual testing.
As long as I can remember, most people listened to music on the radio -- people who dominantly listened to purchased music have always been the exception.
Yeah, but wait for the soon-to-follow Web for Workgroups 3.11...
Or, better, Web NT...
Most modern theaters with digital equipment have variable frame rate setups which let them maximize their ability to rent out the auditoriums for other uses, where video presentations don't conform to the movie industry's 24fps standard. So the additional hardware investment to support the framerate of the 48fps The Hobbit (or the 60fps Avatar sequels Cameron has announced) would be zero. Which is pretty easy to break even on.
Maybe, but the push for high frame rate is connected to 3D, which is why the big stories about films planning to use it are the Jackson's The Hobbit (which is 3D @ 48fps) and Cameron's Avatare sequels (3D @ 60fps).
And, incidentally, was an upgrade to the earlier 18fps (and even earlier 16fps) that were standard during the silent film era.
While high frame rate (HFR) has been tried many times in the past and proved too expensive to catch on (though the additional expensi, the current push for HFR (both the 48fps for The Hobbit and the 60fps James Cameron has said he is using for Avatar sequels) is largely tied to 3D, not as an alternative, but as a means of addressing the downsides of 3D, as the queasiness some people feel with 24fps 3D is reduced with higher frame rates.
"Smaller" compared to the high-end for laptops yes, but the high end for WinXP netbooks was 12.1" (due to Windows XP Home UItra-Low Cost PC licensing limitations from Microsoft); the defining features were generally those smaller screens, network or peripheral dependence for loading software (due to lack of a built-in optical drive), and network or peripheral dependence for large data storage (due to small onboard HDD or even smaller SSD as the main mass storage unit) -- those last two features are the key defining features from which the "netbook" gets its name.
Now, netbooks feature 10.2" or smaller screens because of Microsoft Windows 7 Starter licensing arrangements, which make that version of Windows (and its low-cost license) only available for computers with certain specifications, including 10.2" or smaller screens.
That might be true, but its irrelevant, since the SSD market and the hybrid market are different markets. When your market is growing at 100% year-to-year and you have no competition in your market, it doesn't really matter than some other market is growing at 2000%. In fact, it can be better to be in the slower-growing market with no competitors than the faster growing market with more players -- because, as you note, growth on its own doesn't mean much, its about margin and profitability, and the thing that kills margins and profitability is competition driving prices down.
Betamax and VHS were much less targetted at different usage roles than pure SSDs and hybrid SSDs, for one thing. For another, even in losing the format war, I don't know that Sony did at all badly financially with Betamax.
How is this unfortunate for Seagate? Sure, more pure SSDs are being sold than hybrids, but there is more competition in that market, whereas hybrids are a market Seagate completely owns that is expecting 100% year-to-year growth. Seems to me, there is no bad news for Seagate in that.
Monsanto is a public corporation that is doing a quite good at its job of returning value to its shareholders.
I think what you really mean is that "nation-states need to rethink the rules under which they allow Monsanto and similar companies to operate."
Of course, were that to occur, Monsanto might then need to rethink its business model.
Reread the linked article there. It doesn't say anything about cocoa farmers. It says something about coca farmers. There's a bit of a difference between the two crops.
Each of those statements alone is true of some GM crops (particularly, crops engineered specifically to increase quantities of a particular nutrient are often "more nutritious", and those engineered specifically to resist locally-prominent pests have been shown to reduce the quantity of broad-spectrum pesticides used and that therefore contaminate the environment.) They aren't generally true of the same GM crops, and for many GM crops, the opposite of one or more of those statements is true. For instance, Monsanto's best-known GM product -- RoundUp-Ready crops -- which are expressly designed to resist a particular broad-spectrum herbicide, which Monsanto also has a big business selling -- and, until the patent expired in 2000, also a legally-protected monopoly -- have been shown to vastly increase the use of (and, consequently, the environmental impacts of) the broad spectrum herbicide.
Ascribing particular, though perhaps not exclusive, responsibility for political prisoners in a country to the people in the country (on the principle that they are most responsible for holding their government accountable) is understandable.
I don't get the limitation to working people, however. Why would people who have a job be any more responsible for their government's actions than, say, pensioners, capitalists, and/or the unemployed?
What makes you think that Google+ isn't intended to include Google's all-in-one messaging solution that works on desktop-mobile-and-everywhere-else?
Which, TV shows and action movies aside, is a pretty rare thing.
If, that is, they want to provide an extra lead back to themselves that wouldn't be there if they didn't do that, sure.
Look, all the "microstamping makes it easy to frame" arguments assume the same thing -- that the existence of microstamping (and, therefore, the chance that casings found at the scene will yield microstamping evidence that might have some value in tracing a crime) mean that suddenly, police departments won't bother to collect other evidence, and further won't do any follow-up on the microstamping evidence except assuming guilt of the gun owner it points to.
In reality, police are still going to collect all the evidence that they would if there wasn't a chance that the casing would yield microstamping evidence. So, if there would have been evidence pointing back to you without microstamping, it will still be there with microstamping on the casing -- no matter what gun that microstamping points to.
And if there isn't other evidence, the microstamping gives the police a starting point. Sure, they'll take a look at the person whose casings you stole. Great. Does that mean you successfully framed them? Almost certainly not.
The person those casings point to almost certainly won't have a motive for the killing, won't have been anywhere near the crime scene, and will have every motive in the world to cooperate with the police and let them know where there gun has been and, particularly, where and when it may have been fired and left casings that could have been stolen. Which just gives police a place to start looking for evidence connecting back to the real killer that they wouldn't have had if the attempted frame hadn't been made, and instead the shooter had collected his own shells and not planted someone else's shells.
Probably not.
Yeah, see, that "????" is the tricky part. The existence of microstamping evidence doesn't mean the police suddenly forget how to do everything they currently do, including interviewing people who appear to have some tie to the crime. So, yeah, you've probably managed to get the police to, among their efforts to review any surveillance covering the crime scene, gathering evidence from the crime scene, interviewing witnesses, etc., interview the person whose gun fired the casing you stole -- who, since they actually weren't at the crime scene firing the murder weapon, is quite likely to have a motive to cooperate with the police, no motive to commit the murder, an alibi to provide if the police are suspicious of them, and information about where there gun has been (and who might want to target them particularly) that helps the police narrow down who might have stolen a casing from to conceal responsibility for a murder. All of which gets added to the evidence that the police would have without microstamping to increase, rather than decrease, their opportunity to trace the crime back to the real killer.
If the other evidence (without microstamping) was already going to point back to you, microstamping won't make it go away and not point back to you.
If the other evidence wasn't going to point back to you, stealing someone else's casing may reduce the ability of microstamping to provide a direct lead back to you that wouldn't have been available without microstamping, but even then it gives a lead that once it is followed up on increases, rather than decreases, the odds of there being a trail that leads back to you compared to the absence of microstamping.
Actually, no. Like most techniques that can be used to link an offender to a crime, it can be effective in the real world even if there are ways in which it can, in principal, be used to mislead.
That's true of most useful techniques in crime solving. The solution for this is not to have those techniques available, its not to have "faith" that anyone one of them, standing alone, has more meaning than it actually does. Microstamping doesn't substitute to things like witness testimony, physical evidence (DNA, etc.) of the presence of the suspect at the crime scene, evidence of motive, other existing mechanisms of tying ammunition to the weapon and the weapon to the hand of a shooter, etc. Its just one more tool on top of the others.
BSD doesn't mandate releasing source code of derivative works that are distributed in object code form the way the GPL does; neither license does much one way or the other to "encourage collegiality", which is vastly more a factor of the particular personalities involved in a community than licenses.
Projects which attract a broad community of developers (individual or corporate) who have (or whose sponsors have) an interest, whether ideological or financial, in a more collegial development model end up with a more collegial development model. Lots of GPL proponents like to attribute what they see as successes of Linux in the OS area as an effect of the GPL specifically, but I think the idea that the particular features of the Linux community are closely tied to the GPL become hard to justify when you look at other areas where there are major GPL and non-GPL open source products (e.g., databases with MySQL on the GPL side and PostgreSQL [BSD] and SQLite [Public Domain] on the non-GPL side.)