Posts by Steve Knox 1972 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jul 2011
Nope.
The assertion that the evidence was not obtained properly is not tied to his assertion of innocence. Before the second can be tested, the first must be resolved, because the evidence is what must be used to test the assertion of innocence.
Or to put it more simply, the fact that evidence was obtained from a person, legally or not, does not mean that that person is guilty of something.
I thought it was 0.01 degree.
You are correct. I'm not sure if I misread or mistyped it. But the point is that Celsius and Centigrade differ by a known, constant quantity which is less than the precision used in the article. So for the purposes of this discussion, they are interchangeable.
Celsius and Centigrade agree to within 0.1 degree. So if you know one, you know the other to within 0.1 degree.
Since the level of precision used in the article is either 1 or 10 degrees, either label is accurate.
NO international standard of measure requires the use of specific equipment or methodology to use, as you wrongly claim. There are specific standards against which any equipment or methodology must be calibrated and proven, but once properly calibrated any equipment and methodology which has been proven can be used.
Unfortunately pinch to zoom does more than just enlarge things - it starts mangling coordinate systems and triggering events and overflows. So people sometimes disable it to prevent a site from breaking in other ways.
Rather than redesigning their sites to take into account the fact that HTML was designed from the beginning to flow.
Even El Reg is guilty of this. See those giant empty bands on either side of your widescreen display? Those are there because web designers are too stupid to make the content pane dynamically resize to fit the screen. So readers have to scroll more and read less at a time, because most sites are still based on a horribly ill-fitting fixed-width model of the antiquated print industry.
The only reason so many web designers still have work is because they keep having to come up with more shite hacks to make their original shite hacks compatible with new standards.
" I was always taught when looking at a paper then I needed to consider the perspective of the writer and the context of the paper."
A true observation is a true observation, it shouldn't matter who says it.
A statement needs to be shown to be true before being accepted as true.
But if you are adopting this approach then you'll have to take into account the fact that those working in climate 'science' have a massively vested interest in not de-railing the funding bandwagon. What are they all going to do when the sham is exposed?
Well, with that modelling expertise, they could work in financial systems. In fact, if the money is their motivation, they should do that now. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/>http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/</a>
"Science is an acceptance of a working hypothesis, a model, ready to be struck down and replaced at any moment, when a better one is found,"
A better one doesn't have to be found.
If an experiment shows a hypothesis to be wrong, then it's wrong.
End of.
Not quite, especially in physics.
Observation in the nineteenth century showed that Newton's hypotheses were wrong, but they were accepted because the variances were a) generally found in edge cases, b) not significant for most purposes, and c) sometimes discarded as observational error.
Now we know that Newton was indeed wrong, but his equations are still used, because a) and b) above are still true, and his equations are easier to wrangle than Einstein's.
Hypotheses and models aren't disposed of immediately upon discovery (or even verification) of counterevidence; they are still valuable provided they are the closest or even an acceptable approximation.
In this context, "chaotic" means "complex and highly sensitive to initial conditions", and not "non-deterministic" as commonly interpreted. The short answer is that regular sampling can give insight into trends and correlations.
Wikipedia is a surprisingly good starting point for questions like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_systems#Distinguishing_random_from_chaotic_data. As usual, don't take it as gospel, but you can get the basic idea, and follow the references for more detail.
"About one third of all the CO2 emitted by mankind since the industrial revolution has been put into the atmosphere since 1997; yet there has been no statistically significant increase in the mean global temperature since then," the two MPs state.
Why did they pick 1997? Because 1997 and 1998 were high-anomaly years,so they skew short-term analysis. Had they started from 1999, or 1996, they would have seen a clear trend. The overall trend is clearly warming, even from 1997 onward. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
"By definition, a period with record emissions but no warming cannot provide evidence that emissions are the dominant cause of warming!"
This statement ignores so many factors (e.g, selective dataset, overall chaotic nature of the system being studied, delaying factors) that I'm ashamed it was released by human beings, let alone ones with "scientific training."
Even someone trained as a scientist can fall prey to poor (or even intentionally biased) data selection. This is why we have the scientific method.
Based on the comparison picture, it appears that the 800MH.B has a daughterboard (and hence more flash total than the 1600s -- makes sense for the write-intensive application.)
But what's more interesting is that the MM and MR appear to use the same board, indicating perhaps just a firmware change to differentiate between balanced and read-intensive operations.
However, I thought that it had been medically proven that regular reading does not harm your eyesight -- so what accounts for the read-intensive MR being so much blurrier...?
VMWare does virtualization. Quite well.
But they can't stop there, can they? They have to buy and extend and grow until they do a ton of stuff really crappily, including their once core business of virtualization.
And they're not the only ones. Microsoft's OS has suffered by their (mostly failed) attempts to extend into everything. Google's search engine, once proud of their lightweight, simple interface, is now cluttered with more ads for Google services than actual search results. Symantec began life as a seller of simple but functional utilities, and now most of their products are little more than bloatware. And Citrix -- well, they've always been a bit crap ; )
Riley went through the last 50 years of solar data and calculated that the chances of a Carrington-class storm hitting Earth over a decade were 12 per cent.
12% seems unlikely, but not quite impossible. Before this story, the more common estimate was that Carringtons happened once every century, which seems more believable.
Well, If the chances are 12% per decade, then the chances of at least one per century are roughly 1-(1-0.12)^10 = 1-(0.88)^12 = 1-0.2785 +~72%. The chances of exactly one per century are roughly 38%. The chances of more than two per century are only ~10.9%
With these chances, over time, you'd average ~1.2 per century.
So there's really not much difference between a 12% chance per decade and an average of one per century. (The difference would be one extra event every 500 years, on average.)
@Tom 35
Re:"You want Google or Microsoft deciding what is in the public interest?"
No. They are the perps. We are the victims.
Well, the current ruling requires Google and Microsoft to decide what is in the public interest. So if the data protection authorities don't meet with them and hammer our a coherent standard, then G & M will have to continue to decide it.
That's why they have to meet -- not for "blessing" or impact statements or because of some made-up criminal court-corporate conspiracy.
PGP, or, for that matter, GPG's interface sucks more than even Microsoft could dream up, it is a usability nightmare. In the hands of someone who is technically literate it's fine, but it is miles from end user compatible.
In general, writing a new UI for an existing relatively-well-proven encryption system is simpler than writing a new encryption system. The question is, why has this not happened w/r/t PGP/GPG?
In addition, as soon as you start talking about key management to the average Joe you've lost them before you have even started.
The average Joe doesn't have a house or flat key, or a car or bike key, or a locker key, or keys for their workplace? The principles of management for digital keys are no different from those for physical keys. If the digital system doesn't express those principles in a reasonable analogue to the physical, the solution is the same: fix the UI.
Filing a false DMCA takedown is perjury, and false filers can be held responsible for damages. See, for example, https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15
While it's feasibly possible, it's very unlikely that the average person finding a phone with RoboForm installed could execute the precise steps needed to do what Mr. Moore is doing with the emulator.
Well, if that's the standard, then RoboForm's app is completely uselsss.
If defeating "the average person" is all you want to do, just put a suitably complex unlock code on your phone and store your other passwords in a text file; no need to download an app.
If you want to secure your passwords from more than "the average person", I'd recommend anything but RoboForm, as their spokesman has just confirmed their standards don't extend that far.
The problem is parsing of filenames by traditional unix utilities, since "everybody" knows that if a filename starts with dash (i.e. - ) then programs will parse it as if it was an option.
No, the problem is method of expansion of wildcards by the shell, combined with the tradition of Unix of allowing essentially any printable character in a filename.
The shell expands the wildcards by interpreting them and placing the resulting filenames UNQUOTED into the argument string of the utility.
The fix is to rewrite the shell wildcard expansion routine to quote every filename. For example, in a directory with the following files:
Important File.ows
shellscript.sh
My "Expenses".ods
-rf
the shell command rm * is being passed to the utility as
rm Important\ File.ows shellscript.sh My\ \"Expenses\".ods -rf
(Note that the shell is smart enough to escape characters which are used for argument separation or quotation, but it doesn't escape the parameter character "-". This actually makes sense, because whether an argument is a parameter or not should be up to the application.)
when it should be
rm "Important File.ows" "shellscript.sh" "My \"Expenses\".ods" "-rf"
Most of the decrease in Windows 8 as a percentage is due to uptake in Windows 8.1 (1.72% to 6.61%).
Win 8.x combined has gone from a 9.25% to 12.54% share, a gain of 3.29 percentage points. This is certainly not stellar, but Windows 7 only gained 4.13 percentage points over the same period, and despite the sensationalistic statistical selectivity employed in the article, XP and Vista both dropped over the last nine months, XP significantly.
Separating out Windows 8 and 8.1 is a little disingenuous: XP, Vista, and Windows 7 aren't separated into their respective service pack levels, and whatever Microsoft might want you to think, Windows 8.1 is really no more than a service pack for Windows 8 with a few UI tweaks.
This is not to say that Windows 8 is performing well at all; by this time it ought to be on par with Windows 7 in market share.
But nothing else will be transferred, which will undoubtedly frustrate the hell out of folk who have painstakingly built up a social following on Orkut only to discover they have to start again. From scratch. On Google+.
They could always start again from scratch on Facebook instead...
This mystery has got all the conspiracy nuts out in force, the more I read the more I feel they may be justified.
That's how conspiracy nuts reproduce: they flood discussion of a topic with cleverly crafted wild theories.
At first, you read these theories with a mind to debunking them, and often you can do so easily, or someone else already has. But that's beside the point: The words are now in your brain.
As you read more conspiracy theories, the echoing insanity convinces you to work harder to debunk what you're reading.
This debunking instinct spills over to the rational explanations, which, while most likely correct, are usually not expressed quite precisely enough to be immune to debunking.
So now your brain is actively debunking the rational explanations, based on nothing more than a poor choice of words or misplaced punctuation.
Eventually, your brain realizes that if everything sane is false, than the insane must be true, and a new conspiracy nut is born.
Since this is all a side effect of the natural evolution of our brains, the only preventative is to kill enough brain cells to prevent that critical mass of critical cynicism to develop.
So have another one!
Bluetooth peripherals: you can opt for wired a numeric keyboard and a mouse too at no extra cost
Based on what I know of market prices, opting for wired peripherals should net you a savings of about $50, rather than being neutral.
But based on my experience with Bluetooth mice and keyboards, they're not worth the premium anyway, so I'll call this a wash.
The one-time NSA sysadmin added that he was "willing to pay the price" for leaking that information even if it did damage national security interests.
Good. All you need to do is head to your nearest US embassy, Mr. Snowden.
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation of your return, but your statement rings exceedingly hollow when all of your actions to date have been designed to avoid paying that price.
You may aspire to the moral high ground when you hold others to the rule of law, but you cede that high ground when you yourself avoid that same rule of law.
Actually, Kharkov, you explained exactly why SpaceX will suffer as a public company.
First off, there's the concept that R&D will at some point be "done." R&D is by its very nature never complete. The concept of R&D being done is a misconception on the part of management once it reaches a stage where some results can be profitably exploited. But one exploitable result is not the point of R&D, nor is two. The purpose of R&D is a continuous stream of exploitable results. This is also known as "progress."
You then go on to describe the results which will be profitably exploited, and the environment which will allow them to be profitably exploited.
Then the decisions come in. What to do with the profits? Risk them on more long-term R&D? Invest in marketing and production efficiencies? Return to shareholders?
A board elected by public shareholders will almost always favor the latter two options, as they are much less risky.
So a public SpaceX will sit on it achievements, and milk them for what it can, until another private startup develops a better solution. That will take longer than it would if SpaceX continued to invest in R&D, as some elements will have to be relearned/redesigned by the new startup to avoid infringing on SpaceX's IP.
Yes, SpaceX may succeed financially as a public company, for a short term, but its original vision will suffer and so will progress.
That this "Internet of Things" is a totally unnecessary solution in search of an as-yet-non-existing problem - at least as far as the consumers are concerned. That does not mean though that the industry will not go ahead and try to impose it on everyone anyway.
What!? When has the industry ever pushed unnecessary crap on consumers?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go use my voice-activated tablet to remotely control my 4k 120hz 3d TV with 7.1 surround sound...
No, "internal" and "external" in this context refer to final storage or transmission of the communications either within or without the political boundaries of the UK.
However, in the US, a hidden microphone recording conversations in a public street is fine for anyone because US law applies the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. In this case, a reasonable person chatting on a public street would expect that their conversation might be overheard (because they're in public.)
Not sure about UK law, but regardless of whether you're being recorded or not, talking about private matters in public is probably not a good idea.
Let's say a medium-sized petrol filling station handles 1,000 cars a day - 80% of them between 0700-1900. Recharging all these 40kWh batteries in a day requires a 2MW supply. If it takes an hour to recharge each battery (as it does on a Tesla 120kW super-charger) you're going to fall behind the flow of cars with the aim of catching up overnight (when electricity's cheaper), so you'll need a good few hundred batteries in reserve to last the peak period. You can reduce the problem by charging faster (though I'm not sure how practical that is), but then your power supply requirements increase, and you can't make use of off-peak electricity. And this is assuming the very best (most expensive) technology available - most cars take much longer than a Tesla to recharge.
Thanks for those figures. Those are something which cab be verified and discussed.
It's not rocket science, is it?
No, it's escrow analysis, which is, indeed much simpler.
A simple escrow analysis of these numbers can tell us exactly how many batteries a station will
need in order to meet demand. Since you've given no more detailed picture of the demand curve, we'll assume for this discussion that it is uniform between 0700 and 1900 (high demand ~= 66.67 cars per hour), and between 1900 and 0700 (low demand ~=16.67 cars per hour). Further if you can recharge 1000 per day, you can recharge ~41.67 batteries per hour. Finally, let's assume you want a reserve of 10% (100 fully charged batteries) to deal with a sudden rush (in the case of such a rush, those reserve batteries will be replaced/recharged by an external service provider.) This is all we need for the escrow analysis.
By my calculation, the charging station only needs to store 442 batteries to supply the needs of the 1000 cars they service daily.
If the batteries took two hours to charge, the station would need to have 1171 batteries on-hand.
Doing a back of the envelope calculation about recharge times and the number of 'customers' seeking charged batteries every day, you end up with a need for (being highly optimistic) 50-100% more batteries than you have electric vehicles. Being pessimistic (or perhaps realistic) you'd need 3-4x as many. Given that the battery pack is a substantial part of the cost of any electric vehicle, someone's going to have to invest massive amounts to make this possible. (The recharging unit would also need a power supply equivalent to the output from a small power station, but that's almost a secondary consideration.)
Care to share those calculations (especially assumptions)? Your conclusion has no merit without the benefit of those numbers.
<i- Anyone in a room answering from the top of their head questions like "Anyone remembers the rest energy of a W-Boson?" or "D4 and db2 wavelets are the same right?" is most likely a boffin (or could be a case of stephen fry trying to sound smart)</i>
To distinguish between a boffin and Stephen Fry at this point, check to see if their answer is actually correct.
HP would be well advised to recall how committing themselves to a non-standard processor architecture has worked out for them.
Yeah, over 20 years of highly lucrative sales and support contracts is a real -- oh, you don't mean PA-RISC?
Remember, not everything happened within the last fifteen years, and every processor architecture is non-standard at the beginning...
Not much has been admitted about the plots of the standalone stories, although rumours are rife that the first will be an origin story for a beloved character, with Boba Fett, Yoda or Han Solo at the top of most lists.
Some of those rumourmongers haven't seen episode 2, then*. They've already done Boba Fett's origin story.
* Those lucky, lucky bastards.
"The United States cannot pretend that it is the victim. They are a hacker empire. I think everyone in the world knows this," spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
Nor is there one victim. The US is a victim; so is China; both are also perpetrators.
"Georgie did it first!" "Xi did it worst!" is banter that shouldn't come out of the mouths of anyone over ten years old, yet this is where our governments are in their moral development.
He is a very clever man, but he's not a IT specialists.
Yes, if for no other reason than there's only one of him.
The problem is, the general populace know that he's a very clever man and know that he likes technology. This makes him, in their minds, an IT specialist. This makes us waste entire mornings explaining to some knob why the most recent bollocks to come out of his mouth w/r/t IT is, in fact, bollocks.
Fresh guidance is also available for iOS7, Windows 7 and 8.1.
Not-so-fresh guidance is available for other platforms.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/end-user-devices-security-guidance
Okay, I get that. But it doesn't resolve my question as to why there are useful differences in composition between the Moon and the Earth that they can attribute to a third body. If the Moon and Earth form from "the resultant mixture" as you say, what is the source of them being able to find evidence of Theia on the Moon, if you can only tell it is evidence due to its differences to rocks on Earth.
I haven't studied the simulations, but I'd guess that the collision would result in a higher ratio of Theia-matter to Earth-matter in the ejecta than in the bits that coalesced back to Earth, and so the moon would have a slightly different composition.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
