No, it could work. He wants to capture different information from different parts of the bag. This is a multi-channel problem so you can go below Nyquist. Also you might have a model for speech and you can use to reduce the amount of required information. Finally, you co not need perfect recovery.
France electricity prices do not reflect the actual cost. This is not a free market situation.
Nuclear proponents are completely delusional about the actual cost of this technology. Even for existing technology nuclear is not really competive, actual 3rd generation projects see immensive cost explosion, and thorium is currently just vapourware. Come on guys, just get real.
We aleady have intellectual property laws which limit the information flow on the internet in extreme ways. Why should indviduals not have some rights on information about themselves?
Because Google is an American company. In America speech about something, particularly critical speech, is strongly protected. One of the protections for speech is ownership and rights to your own speech. Person X has no right to control what person Y says about them. That's the very meaning of free speech.
But how is this even related to free speech? It is not really about speech (opinions and ideas) but entries in a data base. It is not even a person speaking, it is a search engine. Also, the right to free speech is not absolute, but already limited even in the US in various ways, see hate speech, *bleep*, copyright...
I bet the most "right to be forgotten" requests will never get additional publicity. There is a reason it is called the Barbara Streisand effect and not the Jon Doe effect.
I also do not fully understand the hatred against these rights. We aleady have intellectual property laws which limit the information flow on the internet in extreme ways. Why should indviduals not have some rights on information about themselves?
That depends on your definition of "floundering". The handset unit was highly profitable and smartphone sales were much higher than any competitor and also increasing at a higher rate in absolute numbers. On the other hand, market share in smartphones was falling (no, this is not a contradiction in a growing market) and Symbian was perceived to be outdated. Nevertheless, I don't think there was any need for desperate decisions. Their old strategy was sound: Meego and Qt to create a joint ecosystem with Symbian. Switching to Windows Phone (which clearly was already floundering) was simply insane.
I get the impression you're trying to score points here by playing semantic games. I wish you would not do so.
What Chas was saying was that there is no such concept as absolute safety, and thus there is always a concept of 'acceptable risk', or 'minimum risk'. This is usually synonymous with safety -- most people are willing to recognize that we do not live in an ideal world.
Back on topic, you seem to be fixated on the idea that any increase in risk is unacceptable. Please explain why.
No you are misrepresenting what I said. My original point is exactly that there is a risk even from very small doses. I was attacked merely for pointing this out.
I never said that the risk in unacceptable, but merely stated that the risk has to be weighted against its potential benefits.
The view that "there is no safe level" is idiotic in light of this. Obviously there ARE safe levels.
I'm telling you, flat out, that there's no such THING as "safe". PERIOD.
No comment.
Then your argument makes even less sense.
If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this.
Unless, of course, that doesn't actually happen to be the case.
In other replies in this thread I pointed out the basic argument why most scientists believe that even very low doses of radiation cause a small risk of cancer and also gave a link to recent review which summarized the discussion and a study which shows an effect for patients which had CT scans. Giving you the right pointers to learn the facts is all I can do. Discussing this further is a waste of time.
I see your point, but I do not agree to the idea that society, by tolerating fatalities from traffic accidents, has accepted a universal trade-off between risk of death and cost. (There are many problems with this idea: how would you quantify the total value of mobility? Also society is not one single entity but consits of many different people with different interests. Cost and risks are also not equally distributed, e.g.. why should society trade a cost to GM with a risk of death to others?). But this is also irrelevant to the original question: The natural background radiation is nothing society has voluntarily accepted.
You are equating "very low risk" with "safe". This is OK in personal life but not if you talking about a large number of affected people. If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this. And this needs to be considered. That there are other risks which are higher is irrelevant and no justification to simply ignore this.
And yes, nuclear proliferation is also a concern, although I do not really understand why you brought that up here.
The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
No, they indicate that society accepts a certain level of harm from automobiles. The "minor cost savings" is capped from above before it is just not worth doing.
The overall harm society accepts for mobility is unrelated to the question whether a couple of lifes are worth the cost of an improved ignitation key.
Pearce et al., Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study, The Lancet 2012;380:499-505
First sentence of the discussion section: "In this retrospective cohort study, we show significant associations between the estimated radiation doses provided by CT scans to red bone marrow and brain and subsequent incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours."
It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe.
That is incorrect. It is one of several common views. Argument from consensus is not scientific, especially when the consensus doesn't actually exist.
Here is a relative new review: http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/...
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
I agree. But a high natural background radiation indicates that the estimated harm is likely very overstated.
No, you didn't get it. I will try with a car analogy: There are about 30000 fatal accidents with motor cycles per year in the US. This does not mean that the harm (16 deaths total or so) from GM's ignition key issue was overstated. The harm was huge relative to the minor cost savings. The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
I have no opinion about the threshold, but there are two things to correct in your post:
it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened.
What makes your "common view" any more valid than any other "common view"? Especially given that "generally recognized as safe" is a completely non-scientific quantity. In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.
He is absolutely right though. It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe. This is also the basis of all radiation protection regulation everywhere (ALARA principle). The reason is simple: Ionizing radiation creates DNA damage with a small probability which then causes cancer with a small probability (which has then a certain probability of killing you). So even a single particle has a very small probability of causing cancer. There is a minority of people that believe that there are other effects (e.g. radiation at low doses activates the immune system) which dominate at low doses, but this is a minority view point and the data we have does not support this. From atomic bomb survivors see a linear correspondence between dose and risk down to about 50 mSv. For example, from this it was predictated that CT scans cause cancer with a very low probability and this has recently been confirmed.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to
Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
