So, 9 or 10 carriers means six to eight available at any given moment. One in the Med, one in the Indian Ocean, a couple in the Pacific, one in the Atlantic is about minimum.
Why, exactly, are even 5 supercarriers "about minimum" for the US when the rest of the worlds combined naval aviation capacity is only slightly larger than that of the 9 amphibious assault ships from which US Marine forces operate before even considering any of the US's supercarriers?
California's problems have to do with a provision (a state constitutional amendment?) that any tax increase must be passed by referendum, but if the referendum fails, the program(s) the tax increase was supposed to pay for remain in effect. In theory, this should lead to a minimalist government, in practice it leads to unfunded programs. Because, as a group, the voters vote for the programs and against paying for them.
This is almost completely wrong. No such provision exists; California tax increases do not need to be passed by voters in most cases. Tax increases may be passed by citizen initiative ("referendum" has a very specific meaning in California law, and doesn't apply here), and certain property-tax-related ones have to be, but the state-level issues are:
like many states (but unlike the Federal government), California has a Constitutional require for a balanced annual budget (essentially, because of dedicated bonds and other things, this amounts to a balanced projected operating budget, rather than a balanced total budget, but it still provides much less flexibility that the federal government has),
until a Constitutional amendment passed a couple years ago by voters, to pass a State budget required a 2/3 majority of each house of the legislature, which was problematic given the partisan polarization in the state legislature; this was recently changed to a simple majority, and
even now, to raise any tax -- or for the legislature to put a tax-raising measure on the ballot -- a 2/3 majority remains required in the legislature, so while its not as hard to pass a budget, its still practically impossible (given partisan polarization) to raise revenues, or to rebalance the sources of revenue (since a revenue-neutral tax shift raises some tax, and thus requires a 2/3 vote just like a straight-up tax increase.)
Insofar as the initiative process is relevant, it mostly is through constraints imposed by initiative which require certain spending, which are typically proposed and passed without dedicated revenue sources (not with the voters rejecting the associated revenue provisions.)
Why on earth would Stanford care about a meaningless certificate?
If its offered, its not meaningless to the people it is offered to. They could be concerned about misinterpretation of its meaning, and they could be concern about inconsistency between the individual Stanford groups offering courses about whether a certificate is offered (because they want consistency in the offerings.)
At the same times, the groups actually offering the classes may have strong opinions about whether or not certificates should be offered (and they may differ between groups) for any of a wide range of reasons.
Just because it doesn't make a difference to you doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference to the people actually involved in the process.
Universities are big business with long-term faculty and administrative staff being a large expense. It would be foolish to believe that they are going to allow online courses to replace their cash cow(campus students).
Executed properly, an at-no-charge non-credit online course program does two things: (1) it serves as a tool to drive mindshare among the set of people that might be interested in purchasing the universities actual consumer product (which isn't education, its degrees; requiring the education as a prerequisite is just something which helps support the market value of the degree), (2) it helps the university smooth out online course delivery -- which has potentially a lot lower cost per student -- before offering online course delivery to students that are paying for degrees. Reducing what amounts to the production cost of the product it sells is net financial win to universities, and working out the bugs in a way which is at arm's length from the for-pay end of the business minimizes the degree to which any growing pains reduce the attractiveness of the university to paying students.
As for certificates - it has always been made very clear that there would be no certification or credit of any kind, issued by Stanford for these courses or for the courses run by Sebastian Thrun's outfit.
IIRC, if you did everything for the previous AI class, there was a certificate (which was not, as I understand, from Stanford) but not credit; the same is apparently true (from the class websites) for at least one of the classes now advertised for February. (The Model Thinking class, whose website states "If you decide to do the deep dive, and take all the quizzes and the exam, you'll receive a certificate of completion.")
The issue in the TFS was that certificates (without the qualification "from Stanford") were an issue of contention; its quite possible for the issue of having any certificates at all for the classes (which are offered under Stanford's aegis) being a point of contention within Stanford even when the issue of certificates from Stanford, as such, is settled.
For there to be contention, there needs to be some area of disagreement - there is none.
There may be none in the narrow area to which you have restricted the issue, but that's not the area in which TFS indicated that there was contention.
Cloud services aren't the problem. Free cloud services where you are hoping that someone else picks up the tab for paying for development, maintenance and infrastructure are the problem.
That's not the problem either. The problem is dependency on any product of service (on-premise or remote, cloud or not, developed in-house or custom by a third party or COTS) for which your assurances of reliability (whether contractual, or based on your own internal QC processes, or whatever) is not sufficient given the criticality of the system to your business processes (whether in terms of the information stored in it or any other dependency you have on it.)
For someone from a country with a professional legal system all these stories about a bunch of amateurs 'applying' the law are hair raising.
Juries don't apply the law. They find the facts. Judges determine the applicable law, and apply the law to the factual issues in dispute in the case to decide the fact questions to put to the jury.
How the hell are things not skewed when the jurors are told (to pretend) to live in an era two centuries ago
Juries aren't told to pretend to live in an era two centuries ago. The restrictions on jurors were just as restrictive compared to daily life two centuries ago. The means available for unauthorized information were different, but nevertheless omnipresent, even then.
Technically, you are correct, but your argument is like arguing in traffic court that you weren't driving your car when the red light camera took the picture.
No, its not.
You can use that argument and get off, once you name who was driving your car.
I'm not trying to get off of anything. We are talking what Google can accurately determine about who is using a google services when no one is logged in.
The issues aren't even related.
Likewise, if you have inappropriate material transferred to/from YouTube, you can always argue that you yourself didn't do it, just your spouse or kids.
Insofar as that is a problem, IP to account association for Google personalization is irrelevant, since the IP alone is all that is needed, independently of whether Google can uniquely tie the IP to an Google Account user, since the ISP will be able to tie it to the IP owner, who will be the target of any legal action, independently of the Google Account users that may or may not have used the IP.
BTW, that argument didn't work when the RIAA sued the grandmother for her grand daughter's infraction.
You seem to be confusing the argument about Google's ability to reliably know that a Google Account user is using a Google service, and which Google Account user that is, based on IP address with a completely unrelated argument about legal liability based on IP address. They aren't even related arguments, much less the same argument.
And don't sign in at home, or on your mobile phone, or really, ever. Including at any time in the past.
Why? Just not signing in to the same account at work as used for out-of-work browsing is sufficient to address the concern at issue, which was avoiding work-inappropriate personalized results based on out-of-work activities being returned while at work.
size / weight is absolutely an issue. I have spoken to many parents who want to buy their 16 year old as big of a car as possible, because they know that 16 year olds are idiots and will wreck the car. Visibility doesnt matter, and responsibility isnt programmed into the kids yet. The parents are concerned for only one thing, the safety of THEIR kid.
They are also poorly informed. SUVs -- and larger cars in general -- are only "better" in terms of safety when you consider injuries/deaths to occupants per accident.
Once you consider the increased frequency of accidents of larger vehicles, the safety advantage for occupants of the large car disappears.
I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision.
It is likewise impossible to dismiss the advantage of size if your goal is to maximize the frequency of collisions a vehicle will experience.
So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
If you RTFA, you'll learn that the intended use case is for centrally-stored, per-use rental applications in urban areas where many people occasionally need cars but don't own them (similar to ZipCars) and where space is at a premium.
For this use, folding gets you a big advantage at the central storage location, since you can store them folded in a line and only need access space for an unfolded vehicle at the head and tail of the line (you could actually do arrive/depart at the same end of the line, but its probably simpler to do those at opposite ends.) This works, because when ready vehicles are stored for rental, they are interchangeable, so as long as you can get one out when you need it, it doesn't matter which one you get out.
You don't need to use the folding capability in traditional parking environments where you need random access to vehicles for the capability to have utility.
If you've actually seen any of the TV ads for the Volt, they basically involve the driver/owner being harassed by confused onlookers arguing over whether it's gas or electric, with the owner sheepishly trying to explain that it's both.
They're terrible ads that leave the viewer confused. I'm sure it's not the only problem but that ain't helping.
Yeah, that's been true of the recent ads, which have (I would guess) made the problem worse: most of the earlier marketing efforts (up to at least right before launch, and I think even after launch) focussed on it as "electric".
I think the new commercials are aimed (poorly) at overcoming the perception problems with "electric", which is a problem they bought themselves by initially marketing a plug-in hybrid as an "electric car".
Basically in a dynamically typed language like JavaScript every property access, function call, or any other thing that can be changed dynamically could be changed at runtime by another thread.
This has little to do with dynamic typing; anytime you share mutable state between threads, anything mutable in the shared state could be changed at any time by any thread (in particular, statically typed languages which allow arbitrary pointer manipulation -- like C/C++ -- have this problem just as much as dynamically-typed languages like JavaScript.)
You correctly note that Java has a mechanism for managing this issue, but that doesn't have any real relation to static typing.
Google's new policy also coordinates your user id with your ip address, so even if you don't log in before going to YouTube, they can still tell it's you by cross referencing the IP address to when you are logged in.
There is more than one different person with a Google account that logs on from the same address, so, no, they can't tell its me by my IP address (they can tell its someone using the same IP that multiple Google Account holders also use, but they can't tell that its one of the people with those accounts, or, if it is, which one.)
And, since most of the individual devices on my home network are shared in much the same way, the same would be true even if I went to IPv6 with each device having a stable, unique address.
I have a feeling that neither of those situations are particularly uncommon.
...right up until the point you are searching Google at work and it starts flashing up ads for midget porn based on that mailing list you signed up for in your personal gmail account.
If you are concerned about that, just don't sign in at work with the same Google Account.
You don't need to sign in to use Google Search in the first place, and its quite possible to have more than one Google Account.
they're not pointless: they give the vehicle self-balancing capability and let it fit into the form factor a person fits in.
A Segway still has a substantially larger footprint than the rider.
you can't take a scooter onto a crowded elevator
You can take a Segway onto on an elevator, but not a crowded elevator, unless you redefine "crowded elevator" to a substantially different meaning than it would usually have when the only thing you were thinking about putting in it were people not mounted on powered vehicles.
SPDY is a great example of someone thinking only of their own application.
By increasing the initial window size from 3 to 10
The initial window size change is part of Google's approach to improving TCP, which is conceptually linked to SPDY (since it is part of Google's broader efforts to reduce web latency), but separate from the SPDY protocol itself.
This level of jitter severely affects VoIP sound quality. And for this calculation I have assumed that the web browser only uses one TCP connection to load the page; if it uses two TCP connections the Jitter may double.
But hey! What does any application developer care about other applications?
You do realize that Google's applications include VoIP applications, right?
Though their Volt car seems like a decent idea; not sure why it isn't selling better?
Because its a fairly new plug-in hybrid that's substantially expensive as many competing hybrids (including, now, plug-in models) from more established brands (e.g., Prius), that is marketed as an "electric car" while at the same time spending a lot of marketing effort to overcome the perception of limitations of electric cars, and that is much more expensive than competitors electric cars (e.g., the Nissan Leaf.)
If they had marketed it as a very fuel efficient hybrid, rather than trying to market it as an electric car and then trying to overcome the public perception of the limitation of electric cars (a limitation that is real, but doesn't apply to the Volt because its a plug-in hybrid, not an electric car) they would have faced less challenges, but they probably saw "electric car" as more of a differentiator, as there were lots of hybrids on the market. While that's probably true, and its probably a positive differentiator for a certain segment of the market, that segment is precisely the segment that is going to be turned off when they find out it actually has a gas tank.
But even then it would be hard sell -- its a very expensive product that most of the intended market would need to finance, that doesn't appeal to the luxury-oriented market, that hit the market during an economic downturn that featured a major credit crunch, and for which the nearest competitors were much less expensive. Its not amazing that it was hard to sell even if the marketing had been spot on.
I wouldn't be surprised if the White House has Dodd himself write a response. When the "End the TSA" petition got a response, it was written by the head of the TSA. Why not?
Well, for one thing, "We the People..." is a project of the current adminstration -- the Executive Branch -- and the head of the TSA is part of the administration, whereas Senator Dodd is off in a completely different branch of government.
agree that it's weird. Usually when people get violently upset about the confusion in semantics between assignment and equality, they go off and do something like invent:= or ==.
In Rust, "let" doesn't distinguish assignment from equality, it distinguishes local variable declaration from assignment.
These installation instructions won't work on Microsoft Windows anyways:
Those are the instructions on the "tutorial" page that are introduced by saying "Assuming you're on a relatively modern Linux system and have met the prerequisites", and followed by a note that the instructions are different for Windows and you need to see the linked Getting Started page. Why would you expect them, as opposed to the specific instructions for Windows, to work on Windows?
I would consider null-pointers/seg-faults an existing, and important problem. If someone wants to research a solution, I think it's a worthy cause. (Though the language is enough similar to Go for the duplicated effort to be a concern)
Its loosely similar to Go, but at least as different from Go as Go is from other languages which attempted to address the same concerns that predate Go.
The similarity is not surprising, Go is an express inspiration for some of Rust's features, and other features are inspired by some of the same languages Go drew inspiration from.
And competing languages in the same general space leave room for different decisions to be tried and prove themselves in practice, which is important.
What I want to know is why did they go to all the effort of creating a whole-new language, instead of just using some other one if they're that dissatisfied with C++.
Because the people involved are dissatisfied with the alternatives to C++, as well.
There's tons of newer, lesser-used languages out there that address deficiencies in C/C++, such as Objective-C and D
The concerns they have with languages in the same abstraction/efficiency neighborhood as C++ (per the project FAQ) are:
1. Insufficient concern for safety, 2. Poor concurrency support, and 3. Lack of pragmatism due to overly dogmatic adherence to an arbitrary paradigm.
Implicitly, as the long-term goal is something you could rewrite Firefox in incrementally, the ease of interfacing with C++ is also important.
I don't think either Objective-C or D address these concerns particularly well.
I'm not a programming language whore, so I don't really know exactly how these other minor languages compare, but it seems like one of them should have fit the bill.
The people that actually worked on Rust have quite a lot of experience with the alternatives (many of which are specific called out as inspirations for some of the design choices in Rust), and have found that they don't fit the bill.
Okay, I'm lost in this one. If the goal of the new language is "to be as fast as C + +", so why not just use C + +?
Because that's not the only goal (or, even the most important goal), and C++ doesn't satisfy the other goals. Particularly, the "project FAQ" on the Wiki notes three common deficiencies in the available languages at the same efficiency/abstraction level targetted by Rust that motivate its design:
1. Not enough attention to safety, 2. Poor support for concurrency, 3. Too dogmatic about paradigm.
#1 and #2 are almost certainly about C++, #3 is probably mostly about the existing alternatives to C++.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, exactly, are even 5 supercarriers "about minimum" for the US when the rest of the worlds combined naval aviation capacity is only slightly larger than that of the 9 amphibious assault ships from which US Marine forces operate before even considering any of the US's supercarriers?
This is almost completely wrong. No such provision exists; California tax increases do not need to be passed by voters in most cases. Tax increases may be passed by citizen initiative ("referendum" has a very specific meaning in California law, and doesn't apply here), and certain property-tax-related ones have to be, but the state-level issues are:
Insofar as the initiative process is relevant, it mostly is through constraints imposed by initiative which require certain spending, which are typically proposed and passed without dedicated revenue sources (not with the voters rejecting the associated revenue provisions.)
If its offered, its not meaningless to the people it is offered to. They could be concerned about misinterpretation of its meaning, and they could be concern about inconsistency between the individual Stanford groups offering courses about whether a certificate is offered (because they want consistency in the offerings.)
At the same times, the groups actually offering the classes may have strong opinions about whether or not certificates should be offered (and they may differ between groups) for any of a wide range of reasons.
Just because it doesn't make a difference to you doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference to the people actually involved in the process.
Executed properly, an at-no-charge non-credit online course program does two things: (1) it serves as a tool to drive mindshare among the set of people that might be interested in purchasing the universities actual consumer product (which isn't education, its degrees; requiring the education as a prerequisite is just something which helps support the market value of the degree), (2) it helps the university smooth out online course delivery -- which has potentially a lot lower cost per student -- before offering online course delivery to students that are paying for degrees. Reducing what amounts to the production cost of the product it sells is net financial win to universities, and working out the bugs in a way which is at arm's length from the for-pay end of the business minimizes the degree to which any growing pains reduce the attractiveness of the university to paying students.
IIRC, if you did everything for the previous AI class, there was a certificate (which was not, as I understand, from Stanford) but not credit; the same is apparently true (from the class websites) for at least one of the classes now advertised for February. (The Model Thinking class, whose website states "If you decide to do the deep dive, and take all the quizzes and the exam, you'll receive a certificate of completion.")
The issue in the TFS was that certificates (without the qualification "from Stanford") were an issue of contention; its quite possible for the issue of having any certificates at all for the classes (which are offered under Stanford's aegis) being a point of contention within Stanford even when the issue of certificates from Stanford, as such, is settled.
There may be none in the narrow area to which you have restricted the issue, but that's not the area in which TFS indicated that there was contention.
That's not the problem either. The problem is dependency on any product of service (on-premise or remote, cloud or not, developed in-house or custom by a third party or COTS) for which your assurances of reliability (whether contractual, or based on your own internal QC processes, or whatever) is not sufficient given the criticality of the system to your business processes (whether in terms of the information stored in it or any other dependency you have on it.)
Juries don't apply the law. They find the facts. Judges determine the applicable law, and apply the law to the factual issues in dispute in the case to decide the fact questions to put to the jury.
Juries aren't told to pretend to live in an era two centuries ago. The restrictions on jurors were just as restrictive compared to daily life two centuries ago. The means available for unauthorized information were different, but nevertheless omnipresent, even then.
No, its not.
I'm not trying to get off of anything. We are talking what Google can accurately determine about who is using a google services when no one is logged in.
The issues aren't even related.
Insofar as that is a problem, IP to account association for Google personalization is irrelevant, since the IP alone is all that is needed, independently of whether Google can uniquely tie the IP to an Google Account user, since the ISP will be able to tie it to the IP owner, who will be the target of any legal action, independently of the Google Account users that may or may not have used the IP.
You seem to be confusing the argument about Google's ability to reliably know that a Google Account user is using a Google service, and which Google Account user that is, based on IP address with a completely unrelated argument about legal liability based on IP address. They aren't even related arguments, much less the same argument.
Why? Just not signing in to the same account at work as used for out-of-work browsing is sufficient to address the concern at issue, which was avoiding work-inappropriate personalized results based on out-of-work activities being returned while at work.
They are also poorly informed. SUVs -- and larger cars in general -- are only "better" in terms of safety when you consider injuries/deaths to occupants per accident.
Once you consider the increased frequency of accidents of larger vehicles, the safety advantage for occupants of the large car disappears.
It is likewise impossible to dismiss the advantage of size if your goal is to maximize the frequency of collisions a vehicle will experience.
If you RTFA, you'll learn that the intended use case is for centrally-stored, per-use rental applications in urban areas where many people occasionally need cars but don't own them (similar to ZipCars) and where space is at a premium.
For this use, folding gets you a big advantage at the central storage location, since you can store them folded in a line and only need access space for an unfolded vehicle at the head and tail of the line (you could actually do arrive/depart at the same end of the line, but its probably simpler to do those at opposite ends.) This works, because when ready vehicles are stored for rental, they are interchangeable, so as long as you can get one out when you need it, it doesn't matter which one you get out.
You don't need to use the folding capability in traditional parking environments where you need random access to vehicles for the capability to have utility.
Yeah, that's been true of the recent ads, which have (I would guess) made the problem worse: most of the earlier marketing efforts (up to at least right before launch, and I think even after launch) focussed on it as "electric".
I think the new commercials are aimed (poorly) at overcoming the perception problems with "electric", which is a problem they bought themselves by initially marketing a plug-in hybrid as an "electric car".
This has little to do with dynamic typing; anytime you share mutable state between threads, anything mutable in the shared state could be changed at any time by any thread (in particular, statically typed languages which allow arbitrary pointer manipulation -- like C/C++ -- have this problem just as much as dynamically-typed languages like JavaScript.)
You correctly note that Java has a mechanism for managing this issue, but that doesn't have any real relation to static typing.
There is more than one different person with a Google account that logs on from the same address, so, no, they can't tell its me by my IP address (they can tell its someone using the same IP that multiple Google Account holders also use, but they can't tell that its one of the people with those accounts, or, if it is, which one.)
And, since most of the individual devices on my home network are shared in much the same way, the same would be true even if I went to IPv6 with each device having a stable, unique address.
I have a feeling that neither of those situations are particularly uncommon.
If you are concerned about that, just don't sign in at work with the same Google Account.
You don't need to sign in to use Google Search in the first place, and its quite possible to have more than one Google Account.
A Segway still has a substantially larger footprint than the rider.
You can take a Segway onto on an elevator, but not a crowded elevator, unless you redefine "crowded elevator" to a substantially different meaning than it would usually have when the only thing you were thinking about putting in it were people not mounted on powered vehicles.
The initial window size change is part of Google's approach to improving TCP, which is conceptually linked to SPDY (since it is part of Google's broader efforts to reduce web latency), but separate from the SPDY protocol itself.
You do realize that Google's applications include VoIP applications, right?
Because its a fairly new plug-in hybrid that's substantially expensive as many competing hybrids (including, now, plug-in models) from more established brands (e.g., Prius), that is marketed as an "electric car" while at the same time spending a lot of marketing effort to overcome the perception of limitations of electric cars, and that is much more expensive than competitors electric cars (e.g., the Nissan Leaf.)
If they had marketed it as a very fuel efficient hybrid, rather than trying to market it as an electric car and then trying to overcome the public perception of the limitation of electric cars (a limitation that is real, but doesn't apply to the Volt because its a plug-in hybrid, not an electric car) they would have faced less challenges, but they probably saw "electric car" as more of a differentiator, as there were lots of hybrids on the market. While that's probably true, and its probably a positive differentiator for a certain segment of the market, that segment is precisely the segment that is going to be turned off when they find out it actually has a gas tank.
But even then it would be hard sell -- its a very expensive product that most of the intended market would need to finance, that doesn't appeal to the luxury-oriented market, that hit the market during an economic downturn that featured a major credit crunch, and for which the nearest competitors were much less expensive. Its not amazing that it was hard to sell even if the marketing had been spot on.
Well, for one thing, "We the People..." is a project of the current adminstration -- the Executive Branch -- and the head of the TSA is part of the administration, whereas Senator Dodd is off in a completely different branch of government.
In Rust, "let" doesn't distinguish assignment from equality, it distinguishes local variable declaration from assignment.
Those are the instructions on the "tutorial" page that are introduced by saying "Assuming you're on a relatively modern Linux system and have met the prerequisites", and followed by a note that the instructions are different for Windows and you need to see the linked Getting Started page. Why would you expect them, as opposed to the specific instructions for Windows, to work on Windows?
Its loosely similar to Go, but at least as different from Go as Go is from other languages which attempted to address the same concerns that predate Go.
The similarity is not surprising, Go is an express inspiration for some of Rust's features, and other features are inspired by some of the same languages Go drew inspiration from.
And competing languages in the same general space leave room for different decisions to be tried and prove themselves in practice, which is important.
They don't. They think that a new language may be part of a solution, in the fairly long term.
Because the people involved are dissatisfied with the alternatives to C++, as well.
The concerns they have with languages in the same abstraction/efficiency neighborhood as C++ (per the project FAQ) are:
1. Insufficient concern for safety,
2. Poor concurrency support, and
3. Lack of pragmatism due to overly dogmatic adherence to an arbitrary paradigm.
Implicitly, as the long-term goal is something you could rewrite Firefox in incrementally, the ease of interfacing with C++ is also important.
I don't think either Objective-C or D address these concerns particularly well.
The people that actually worked on Rust have quite a lot of experience with the alternatives (many of which are specific called out as inspirations for some of the design choices in Rust), and have found that they don't fit the bill.
Because that's not the only goal (or, even the most important goal), and C++ doesn't satisfy the other goals. Particularly, the "project FAQ" on the Wiki notes three common deficiencies in the available languages at the same efficiency/abstraction level targetted by Rust that motivate its design:
1. Not enough attention to safety,
2. Poor support for concurrency,
3. Too dogmatic about paradigm.
#1 and #2 are almost certainly about C++, #3 is probably mostly about the existing alternatives to C++.