Re: These theories are all over the place!
try:
E^2 = p^2 c^ + m^2 c^4
and you might be on to something... (but unfortunately not a gravitational something)
1054 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
It's nice to be indispensable, because it means you can easily stand up to such tactics. However, there are lots of less-indispensable workers who might well find that a refusal to take the cut would result in termination. They have to make a more difficult judgement call, make a choice, and hope. Taking (only) a 10% hit, and then hoping to later jump ship might look like the best option.
Since phones these days are qute smart, maybe someone should invent a protocol so that your phone gets to play its own(ers) preferred on-hold music/ radio play/ news reports/ whatever while waiting.
Also, maybe there's a new ElReg colum here - not "On Call", but "On Hold" :-)
Some devices already have buttons to re/connect to the wifi. It might be easier to set (eg) a double-press to allow net-based admin login access for the next 15 minutes, which would cut down the attack window by a considerable fraction. Many users should easily understand "double-click for admin"; whereas many (most?) clearly cannot be bothered with password changing, and mandating stuff will not change that.
Not perfect, but might be more consumer friendly than mandatory ban-hammers. Comments?
Consider the surface of a ball (note the surface only, not the volume contained within it).
Q1) Whereabouts on that surface would (or could) you put a marker that says "centre"?[1]
Q2) Would everyone agree about the location of that central point?[2]
[1] Anywhere
[2] Probably not. Why should they?
AJ is correct, although here they are claiming a hydrodynamic version of the effect; but there seem to be a fair number of (admittedly unsurprising) approximations to get to the hydrodynamic model, so perhaps "hydrodynamic-like" version might be a better phrase.
This is essentially a dynamic effect: i.e. if you wobble the condensate in the right way it reacts as if it has negative mass - but given a long continuous push, it will not. In fact very mearly all "negative" mass/poisson-ratio/ permittivity/ refractive-index/ etc claims are of this dynamic type.
Shocking - abandoned in a drawer!?
I still use my SL5500 as an alarm clock (I like the little chirp noise, and I can use the calendar to set as many weird waking up time as I like, eg a whole weeks worth of different times at one sitting).
Also I installed Opie on my Yoga for an awsome[1] Giant Zaurus Experience.
[1] May not be as awesome as all that, and probably not worth the time spent on source-tweakage necessary to get it to build given all the bitrot, but anyway...
I don't have quite thirty years yet, but I do have a PhD, and I keep an eye on the rss feeds for several electromagnetism-related wikipedia pages. Mostly the changes are benign, or random vandalism which is reverted by bot, or dealt with by somebody else, so the net workload is almost vanishingly small, ... unless I have a burst of enthusiasm for improving something.
However, I dare say it might be different if I were to take an interest in more controversial subjects.
Having spent quite a lot of time in science buildings over the years (mostly physics ones), I can testify (IME) to the slightly-grim corridor-heavy scruffiness of almost all of them; although occasionally you get lucky and might get a brief period of generic 90's office, or a superficial refurb where they paint the walls white, add a few extra lights, and change the floor covering. In general, some evidence that the architect actually thought people might be working there at some point would be nice, although slightly more reliable-than-average lifts are also appreciated.
There is also an interesting article/comment/reply sequence discussing this here (all in NJP hence open access)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/1/013036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/11/118003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/11/118004
Early internet "social media" were (at least in my experience) just that, /social/ media: e.g. usenet was based on groups, irc had channels. You might have thrown your ego about in such forums, and some were admins or moderators, but essentially the forum was about the group or social interest of those who turned up and posted/talked there.
In contrast, contemporary social media tend to be explicitly about ego: e.g. /my/ twitter feed, /my/ facebook page. I think it changes how we see and use the medium, and what we expect of it. Likewise, the up/down-vote scoring sometimes seen in this kind of "ego-media" changes the default experience of the internet glasshouse.
Science almost always /isn't/ the stuff which make it into science press releases - do not confuse media reports of science with the real thing.
Feel free to peruse some open-access real-science at e.g.
http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630
https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/home.cfm
https://journals.aps.org/prx/
I think that even with the best will in the world that guarantee will never happen.
More practically, there should be defined compensation to be paid by each entity using the data, to each person whose data it is, in the event of a breach and or/leak and/or misuse.
Then we will be able to be sure there will be real incentive for the data to be handled correctly, and so have a reasonable hope that it /will/ be handled correctly... but if not, compensation will be paid. Perhaps 10k per record over tens of millions of patients might concentrate the mind a bit.
Well, to be fair, I might well have bought several sorts of mostly pointless iot-like objects by now, if only for the entertainment value of mucking about with it over the net ... ... ... except for the fact that I manifestly couldn't trust them, what with the various "communicate with manufacturer's servers", security problems, no proper patching, not open source, obscure control protocols, and other fun features they have.
It seems to me you could also use this as a test to determine whether humans (or indeed anything else) should be able to patent things. Is this the intent of your criterion, or are you just trying to discriminate against things that might be called AI's? :-)
It seemed clear from the article that the prof was just thinking ahead, since from the third-last paragraph: "The idea of computers achieving legal personhood status is a long way away, he acknowledges". So it doesn't seem likely that he was thinking about contemporary so-called "AI" systems, which is the ones you seem to be objecting to in this context.
There were a couple of Alpha's in the physics department at UQ before 1994; they may have been blindingly fast, but seemed less so when you didn't have (i.e. couldn't afford) enough memory and had to do large matrix calculations by swapping virtual memory off disk. I recall my computations were so i/o bound that I got maybe 4% of the cpu speed.
Not the fault of the machine, though, which was quite nice.
I think "autopilot" is likely to be taken to mean "pilots itself in most ordinary circumstances".
What might count as a perfectly adequate set-and-(partly)-forget autopilot for an aeroplane, allowing a pilot to take care of other tasks whilst being prepared to take back control is hopelessly inadequate for coping with the complexities of ground/road traffic: aeroplanes have a much reduced traffic density to care about, and aren't confined to bendy roads with intersections, multifarious obstructions to vision, and so on. A road-traffic autopilot needs to be vastly more sophisticated than one for air-traffic to achieve the same "pilots itself in most ordinary circumstances" ability.
Just because they are ok with the collection with one sort of data (signal strength/ network performance or whatever) does not mean they are necessarily happy with the collection of other data - e.g. their use of games or social media apps.
That said, I've no idea what the data collection was or is in this case - just making a distinction which may be helpful here.
A more minimal tweak might be to allow calls from "known" & "unknown" s/devices to be queued separately, and in the event of capacity problems, to answer each queue alternately. Then, in an anonymized DDos, the two queues would be very different lengths so that "known" calls would be more likely to be answered, but you wouldn't ignore all "unknown" calls.
They might consider themselves lucky they got to cancel it.
I recall that the ground proximity warning was the last thing that the pilots of Air NZ flight 901 that crashed into Mt Erebus heard. That was the result of a coordinate input error also, if I recall correctly (albeit a somewhat more complicated one).
Just because there are many dubious and/or overblown "gateway" claims, typically being somewhat doom-laden, does not mean there are no "gateway" like scenarios which actually occur.
Notably, I might recast a common, and largely uncontentious narrative of the form "inspirational teacher in year X led me to do Y" as a "gateway experience in year X led me to do Y" - the actual events haven't altered, just the language used.
Further, there could easily be competing analyses of a situation, with A claiming that there is no significant gateway effect since very few in its presence went further, while B might be able to point out that the posited "gateway" was crucial in the progression of those susceptible individuals.
It seems to me that the existence of a "gateway" does not demand that everyone walks on through it; and evidence for or against a claimed gateway effect needs to look at the specific situation. But I don't think that it's an unreasonable thing to hypothesize that one /might/ occur in a novel situation, as is done here.