Re: Be fair
... changing the windows store icon from green to grey is awesome!
Yes, it'll be good to get out of this artificial universe and back to the real one at last!
1495 posts • joined 16 Jul 2011
... changing the windows store icon from green to grey is awesome!
Yes, it'll be good to get out of this artificial universe and back to the real one at last!
Today we know those "earth-shattering discoveries" are a dime a dozen, limited only by your R&D budget...
Any R&D department held to a 12-discovery per $0.10 spent standard would fold within a year.
Let's look at some real-life R&D budgets:
IBM: In 2013*, they had the most (utility) patents granted by the USPTO, at 6,788. Your valuation would imply that they spent $56.57 on R&D in 2013. In actuality they spent $6.5 billion on R&D in 2013. Cost per dozen: ~11.5 million.
Samsung: had 4,652 patents, worth (apparently) $38.77. Actual 2013 R&D spending: $4.3 billion. Cost per dozen: ~11 million.
So it's a closer approximation to say that these "earth-shattering discoveries" are approximately $11,000,000 per dozen. I'm sure someone with more time to research or better sources could come up with a more accurate figure.
In fact, just to pay the wages (not including benefits, facilities, etc) of a single minimum-wage full-time US worker, an R&D department would, based on your standard, have to develop 1,809,600 ideas to patent-eligible status per year. That's 6.5x the number of US patents granted in 2013 (277,835), and nearly half of all US Patents granted in the past 25 years (3,803,188).
* Based on most recent USPTO statistics, available here.
is not necessarily positive. I'm sure Portugal's lovely, but the dangers of Facebook are too great to downplay...
They are affected if they used IMAP or SMTP client software connecting to Outlook/Hotmail and disregarded security alerts during the attack.
Even if the content of their e-mails during that time is unknown, the fact that they encrypt their e-mails has likely put them on a list somewhere.
First off, they're not changing two: level of income, market type, yes, but also cultural environment, etc.
Second, perhaps the authors of the paper conclude nothing more than that the results are non-generalizable, but that's certainly not Worstall's conclusion:
So it turns out that the inhabitants of poor and non-market economies are much more like that entirely rational homo economicus than we luxuriating in the riches of a capitalist and free marketish one may be – which was a bit of a shock to be quite frank.
Note that Worstall here is concluding not that they are simply more likely to accept because of some unknown factor (such as, possibly, the relative economic value of $1), but specifically because they are more economically rational.
I'm not surprising that it was a bit of a shock, as it doesn't follow from the limited nature of the study. The study only shows that the threshold of "fairness" varies by environment, which should only come as a shock to someone who has no concept of social variety.
Are there more seats than shown, or do you just throw the children into the boot?
Why not get an interview with the developer and give us a proper look at this battery technology?
Perhaps the developer doesn't want to give interviews to other publications? Whether the technology in question has merit or not, control over the release of information is critical in properly exploiting it.
I want to know if I'll really be able to charge my phone in less time than it takes to brush my teeth.
You're not old enough to remember SyQuest? Baby.
To hold Apple, or any other tech giant that happens to use tin-based solder (all of them) responsible for what's happening at the bottom here seems rather harsh. Why not critique the government itself?
You say that as if it's an either/or proposition. That's not how responsibility works. Let's walk up the chain again:
1. Some (relatively) poor people mine some tin without a license or whatever they need from the government. They are fully responsible for the legal, environmental, and ethical consequences of their actions.
2. The miners then sell the ore to a smelter. By accepting the ore in trade, the smelter is accepting responsibility for where it came from. This does not negate the miners' responsibility; it is a separate but equal responsibility.
3. The smelter then sells their tin via the state-owned exporter. At this point the state accepts responsibility.
4. Solder manufacturers buy the tin to make solder, adding themselves to the list of responsible parties. But their are many solder manufacturers, and they don't all use all of the tin, so their responsibility is proportional to the amount of tainted tin they take on.
5. Electronics manufacturers buy the solder; now they're sharing the responsibilty as well, again, proportional to their use.
6. Now we buy the electronics and must accept our share of the responsibility. But of the 55,000 metric tons of tin produced in Indonesia annually, each of us individually may be responsible for a few to a few hundred kilograms, depending on what we buy and what we make.
In short, responsibility is not like a hot potato to be passed around; it's a virus. Passing it on doesn't mean you're rid of it.
Looking down the chain, we each individually bear a small burden of responsibility. Apple, the solder manufacterers, and the Indonesian state can all be considered aggregators of responsibility, because they hold responsibility equal to that of all of their customers. From the state to the smelters and then to the miners, responsibility is spread back out a bit.
So from that point of view, the Indonesian state seems the most logical point of attack, because as you say its monopolistic position means it aggregates the sum total of responsibility for illicit tin mining in Indonesia. From a purely ethical standpoint, it is the largest holder of responsibility.
But from a strategic change management position, Indonesia is a very poor target, because it is a sovereign nation, giving it the explicit right to control both the definition and the enforcement of laws within its borders. If it decides to define laws such that these people are mining illegally, but not to enforce those laws, then it has that right. Certainly there are international treaties and human rights laws which can trump these national laws, but enforcing those is difficult and has unpredictable levels of success.
Apple, on the other hand, is an excellent target, for reasons which appear to be deliberately engineered by Apple. Apple has positioned itself in the high-end aspirational range of the electronics goods market, partly by setting very clear social responsibility goals for itself and its suppliers, and by enforcing them.
So if you actually want to effect such change in an arena where Apple is a serious player, you highlight Apple's responsibility, because Apple's position is sensitive to such criticism.
ResellerExpress accepts liability for when its software messes up, and has an escrow account set up to handle those cases where the sale will go through, right?
The small businesses read the TOS/licensing contracts for the software and verified that they were covered -- right?
I mean, it's not like we live in a society where software companies can just throw products out there willy-nilly with no fear of liability, relying on excessively long contracts with overly complicated language in miniscule fonts to minimize the chance of customers even knowing their rights and a torturous legal system to dissuade those complainants who do have valid cases ... right?
A GIANT picture to introduce a video piece, which is presented off the initial screen in a much smaller frame.
I thought for a second I had accidentally clicked on some stupid Suckerberg* story.
If you insist on the preschool picture angle, USE THE VIDEO AS THE PICTURE.
* I absolutely, honestly, tried, several times, to start that name with a Z. I don't know if it's the angle of my keyboard or some subconscious impulse, but my ring finger kept hitting the S...
(after the stereotypical kneejerk "OMFG UI CHANGE" reaction)
But when you have ONE GIANT STORY at the top of the page, taking up almost all of the initial screen, you're alienating your major audience, who, let's face it, are return readers. We've either seen the top
stories already or we'll get to them.
Tone it down so they take up less than 1/3 of the home page.
That medical bankruptcies stat is a little off. It's more like "x million went bankrupt owing some medical bills" rather than "x million went bankrupt because of medical bills".
Actually, it's closer to the latter, not the former.
CNBC's source is this Nerdwallet article: http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/03/26/medical-bankruptcy/
As NerdWallet explains their methodology:
Bankruptcy: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills[emphasis mine], excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors’ 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts.
1. Can the lasers double as space debris defense?
2. How can we get some frikkin sharks up there?
It takes two days to pick out all of those extra u's.
The second (and almost never followed) rule is to also have a less powerful computer than your end users.
That way, you can see what happens when you write and test code on a Core i7 with 32GB of RAM, and a user tries to run it on an AMD A4 with 1GB of RAM.
You can then choose a course of action somewhere on the spectrum between spending weeks of development time optimizing for old hardware, or the Microsoft approach.
The Daleks have been in films.
You do not want to see the films they were in, but they were...
They just haven't fitted the flashy light to it yet.
GCSE needs a HUGE more expertise to pass.
For example, a basic understanding of the different parts of speech and how they work together to create a coherent expression.
It's way simpler than that harebrained conspiracy theory.
Every time we get better batteries, we use that improvement to make them work harder, rather than last longer.
Compare what the average person does with a smartphone now with what they did just ten years ago.
And you're surprised that the batteries don't last longer?
As for the car battery analogy, the amount of power needed to move something as heavy as an automobile for even a few miles at any reasonable speed is at least a full order of magnitude greater than that needed to power a high-end smartphone for a week.
My Samsung Galaxy S5 gets 2-3 full days at moderate usage on a 3.85v 2800mAh (= 10.78Wh) battery. At 3x my usage, it would take a 75Wh battery to keep that phone running for a week.
My Prius C, on the other hand, can drive for 1-2 miles at up to 30MPH on its battery, which is a 144-volt 6.0Ah (=864Wh) battery.
As for a 1000+ mile range on a 15-minute charge? Bollocks.
To get a 1,000 mile range at a pedestrian 30MPH that Prius C would require a 432kWh battery (assuming best case scenario, and increased battery weight fully offset by motor efficiency improvements), or roughly 4,007 Samsung Galaxy S5 batteries.
(For a check, gasoline contains about 33.3kWh per US Gallon. Since a good gasoline engine pushing a small car might get 50MPG (US) at 30MPH, that would mean 660kWh of energy to go 1,000 miles. So I am being quite optimistic for the battery here.)
To charge that battery in 15 minutes with a perfectly efficient charger would require 1,728kWh, or about 7,200 amps at 240 volts.
While the trend line looks nice, the latter results clearly show a pattern of seasonality, which had likely been previously masked by NetApp's growth. Separate quarterly trend lines would be more appropriate.
is a 24-month span considered a "rigid date".
Since the primary victims were the server versions of Windows, it stands to reason that the vulnerability is exploitable via services such as SMTP, MSSQL or IIS (to name but a few.) Any of these might be configured to use the SChannel stack. Pass an encrypted packet to these services, and they send it to SChannel to decrypt.
Essentially, if you've provisioned a network service on a Windows box, and thought you were making it safer by turning on encryption, you may have actually made it worse...
Isn't the endurance issue with flash caused by degradation from multiple overwrites?
If so, then a write once, read rarely, overwrite rarely* use pattern should be fine at all but the most sensitive endurance level.
Or is there degradation over time (or reads) as well?
*Which, for those who like to stretch acronyms to the limit, could be called Write Once, Read Rarely, overwrite rarelY. I'll just go and chastise myself for thinking that up, thank you very much.
But remember, you only need one fact. to disprove an invalid theory.
Okay. The sky is blue, therefore, your theory that 97% of published climate papers are wrong is itself wrong.
Any one fact will not prove or disprove a theory, especially not one as complex as AGW. A preponderance of relevant evidence is needed. I won't go into why your observation does not rise to a preponderance of evidence here; I've answered that in a response to your response to my post below.
1. First, you have provided no citation for your fact of no change for 18 years, 1 month. No problem, though. Promise to identify your sources in the future, and I'll give you a source which almost agrees with you: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344 (according to them, though, it's only been about 16 years.)
2. This doesn't bother me, though, because they also point out the gaping flaw in your logic: you're using short-term (i.e, annual) trends to try to analyze a long-term issue. If you check the annual change in temperature, it's been rather flat. But if you check the decennial, the increase is still happening. Climate scientists tend to use 30 years, because relatively minor events (e.g, volcanoes) can affect climate trends for several years.
Think of it this way: if you go climb a mountain, there will be quite a few places along your ascent where you can walk along a level path, or even downhill slightly. That doesn't mean you've hit the peak, only that the ground is not uniform. To identify where the mountain starts, peaks, and stops you have to zoom out to get more perspective.
Nobody with an understanding of science believes in evolution.
Scientists (both professional and amateur) in general accept that evolutionary theories provide the best explanation to date of the observational and experimental evidence we have of the origin and diversity of life on Earth. As with AGW, there are some scientists who do not agree with the consensus, for various reasons.
But anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary theory can see why it's not really relevant in this case. In general, the time frame necessary for evolutionary processes to effect significant change in a species is longer than the time frame under which climate change is occurring.
Indeed, that is the primary concern with climate change -- not the change itself, but the rate of change. It's happening faster than evolutionary processes, and possibly human technology, can adapt.
They may have made it their life's work to thoroughly understand their own subject, but many scientists in the field of climate change could really have done with spending a little less time on that and a little more time studying statistics.
Do you have specific examples and evidence, or are you just engaging in a bit of general slander? What percentage of scientists constitutes "many"? What, curriculum, specifically, do you endorse for climate science? What methodology did you use to develop that curriculum and compare it to existing curricula?
Maybe if you gave the full details of those 97% published papers - something about the vast majority of published papers being rejected before they found a few that agreed with their foregone conclusion and that 97% is of those few.
Yeah, you've never read the study. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
So either they've discovered a particle which resolves unanswered questions, or they've discovered a particle which raises yet more questions, including the requirement of the existence of heretofore unobserved fields.
Absent specific evidence that this is not the Higgs Boson, the former theory remains the simpler, and hence more useful.
I wonder why it is then that so many films insist on wandering into showing characters are "straight" when it has no real bearing on the story? Double standards at play methinks.
No, savvy producers manipulating horny bastards at play. Those scenes aren't there to show that people are straight, they're there because sex sells.
Actually, most of these class action suits result in out-of-court settlements that set no legal precedent whatsoever.
Unlimited is supposed to refer to the amount of data transferred. No one says you'll have unlimited speed,
A limit on speed is by design a limit on amount of data transferred. The former is a derivative of the latter, over time.
The people who work at GCHQ would sooner walk out the door than be involved in anything remotely resembling ‘mass surveillance’.
We access the internet at scale so as to dissect it with surgical precision.
Ah, I see. It's all a matter of emphasis. It's clear that his point is that if the GCHQ were limited to doing things which only remotely resemble mass surveillance, they would quit.
Since the resemblance between their activities and mass surveillance is in no way remote, they're fine with it.
Makes perfect sense now.
This being said counterarguments based on the wisdom of unspecified "experts" doesn't cut it for me either.
Read Page 2. The experts are specified there. Tim even gave you a link to their wisdom. Simples.
To be fair, Pauli didn't call her a Republican -- he called her a "Republication".
Give him the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps she was out of print for a while.
do you think Apple will pay for the facility at the sale...?
Bet those questions are a thinly disguised attempt to get your password...
From the whitepaper, they've simply identified an ideal target, in that pretty much all information in an Android system passes through Binder at some point.
While they've been able to simulate an exploit by hacking their own system compiled from Android code, they haven't actually produced a working attack against a production Android device.
So this is more to the point of where should smart criminals or defenders focus their efforts in Android, rather than "ZOMG WERE ALL PWND!"
And yes, the answer is always informed by our interest in consumers: to go back to the Google example, whatever we do about that search dominance is going to depend on how well consumers do out of it. What the people at Foundem think about it all is irrelevant.
It's amazing how few of your fellow Reg journalists appear to get that last point.
My favorite phone interaction with a marketing droid:
MD: “Hello, can I speak to Mr. Knox please?”
...5 seconds of dead air later...
MD: “Hello, can I speak to Mr. Knox please?”
...another 5 seconds later...
MD: "...are YOU Mr. Knox...?"
ME: "VERY good! Goodbye!"
Hey, the more progress we make towards reaching ludicrous speed, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
...the Surface Pro 3, something closer to a MacBook Air than an iPad...
This is true only in the sense that a gerbil is closer to a porpoise than to a hen.
Since iPads start only a tad lower and go considerably higher you are suggesting they should be cheap because they are no good.
No, we're all suggesting they should be cheap because there's not enough demand for them.
You can justify all you want with your opinion of quality, but at the end of the day, Microsoft is simply not pricing the Surface line where they actually fall on the supply/demand curve. Until they do, they won't ship them in any kind of appreciable quantity. They've already spent billions on marketing trying to shift that line, with no practical effect. They'd be better off cutting the price by 25% and their marketing budget by 50%.
"Walk up and use anything".
Yeah, there's an app for that. It's called "hands".
The output can [should] not be determinable by any means other than actually running the hash function against the data, at which point you haven't predicted it; you've calculated it.
There are also rumours suggesting the government has ordered staff to use domestically manufactured phones in the wake of the Snowden leaks.
Why should that be a problem for the iPhone (or almost any other electronic device)?
I believe you did misunderstand me. I understand the difference between empiricism and empirical knowledge, and I respect science specifically because it does acknowledge that it is limited to empirical knowledge. A true scientist, when presented with a question or idea which is not empirically testable, will take the position you have: it is outside the realm of science, and any position taken on it would not be scientifically valid.
My problem is with those who don't recognize or respect that limit; those who truly are dogmatically empiricists, adamantly asserting that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge, in spite of the contradiction that said assertion is not empirically determinable. They are taking that assertion as truth because they say it is, and for no other reason. That is dogmatic empiricism.
Structured religion is, as you say, dogmatic. That still does not change the fact that clinging to such dogma will eventually kill it.
Consumer Reports explained that it stress tested the mobes by supporting them at two points on either end. Force was then applied at a third point on the top of the device.
That is false. You can clearly see from the Consumer Reports video that the force is applied at a line on the top of the device.
The other videos and pictures I've seen demonstrate applying force at a particular point.
Different structural designs react differently to stress at a point and stress across a line, so while Consumer Reports' numbers may be correct for what they tested, they are likely not relevant to the actual issue being discussed.
I understand there is additional complexity, but
"requires a 2X infrastructure"
is completely wrong.
Either you're making this up or you do not understand how to manage a virtual infrastructure. You could do this with a single additional host with enough resources to support your largest single-unit guest environment. That would be quite slow of course, but you could do this in a reasonable amount of time with 1.25 to 1.5x the current utilized infrastructure.
And if you don't already have at least 1.25x utilized infrastructure available to begin with, I definitely don't want to be playing in your cloud.
And if your infrastructure isn't capable of live-migration of guests from host to host, you need to invest in technology less than five years old.
To spin up a patched host cluster, migrate existing guests to the patched cluster, elastically growing the cluster as necessary?
Wasn't that the promise of the cloud? No downtime because if there was an issue your guest could be dynamically moved to a fixed environment, which could grow as the buggy environment shrunk?
Where I work, our network admin has done that many times with our little VMWare cluster, migrating live clients to new hosts, patching the orginal hosts, and migrating back, allowing maintenance to have exactly 0 impact on operations.
I know, I know, Rackspace and Amazon are massively more complex environments. But if the increased complexity doesn't give you even equivalent stability, WTF is the point!?
This is not a bad article, but it is a small percentage of the information and perspective available in the original paper, which anyone can read here: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/11/06/000158349_20121106085546/Rendered/PDF/wps6259.pdf
(Oh, and Tim, if you really wanted a representative chart of the state of global inequality, you should have used the chart on page 9 of the original paper. The chart you chose actually does not show changes in inequality, but changes in distribution. There's a subtle but important difference.)