I fail to see how this is relevant to the
It is relevant to today's
Having said that, it is also meaningful to you because you likely pay, via several different avenues such as taxes and cable fees, money to support the NFL.
Either you want to be surrounded by other drunk and obnoxious people, or you don't.
FTFY
Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding.
Funny, I'm the same way.
I don't think that's the intended use at all.
I'm guessing they're expecting texts more like "someone broke into my house, and I'm hiding in the closet", or "my husband is abusing me, and thinks I'm just cleaning up in the bathroom, but I need help", etc. Situations where being discreet is important, situations where people currently try to text 911, and often get no response.
Agreed. I don't think it's intended to replace a 911 call, but to provide an alternative in situtations, such as you provided, when a 911 call might not be practical. Another example would be during a mass casualty event where 911 calls can't get through because the towers are saturated. SMS messages use essentially no bandwidth and would be able to get through, providing emergency services and first responders with additional information about injuries, people who are trapped, etc.
What carrier changes you for 911 phone calls? You don't even need a SIM card to make a 911 call.
All of them, but they don't charge the caller. They charge their subscribers. Subscribers are charged a number of vaguely described monthly "fees" like "Universal Service Fee". These fees are supposed to pay for mandated features like the ability to call 911. Another one of these "fees" pays for the the ability to port a number from one carrier to another. These mandated features only get imposed if the carriers get an approved way to bill customers for them somehow.
I know PGP is open source, but who knows enough about both encryption math and programming to actually verify that the code is safe, and why should anyone trust them?
I do and many others do as well. Hopefully at least some of these others are outside of the reach of the US.
Personally I'm not interested in anything that involves uploading my private keystore to a third party, encrypted or not, and without that you lose the main feature, portability, that comes with webmail.
By contrast, the 2014 Jeep Cherokee runs the "cyber physical" features and remote access functions on the same network, Valasek notes. "We can't say for sure we can hack the Jeep and not the Audi, but... the radio can always talk to the brakes," and in the Jeep Cherokee, those two are on the same network, he says.
This does tie in well with and extend their presentation last year where, given access to the car's network, they were able to manipulate its steering and braking systems. The trick will be to subvert one of the remotely accessible systems and then generate the necessary commands on the network in question using that subverted system. Maybe they are saving that presentation for 2015.
part of the problem is that many homes burn coal for heat, so it isn't just industrial pollution, nor from automobiles, the latter two are present during most of the year, with the former being a problem concentrated in winter.
Strapping a filter over the individual smokestacks would help reduce emissions significantly in that case too, especially over time.
Of course it's possible. JPEG encoding has three steps: cosine transform of each block (DCT), then quantization (where the loss happens), then coding. In JPEG, the coding involves a zig-zag order and a Huffman/RLE structure, and this isn't necessarily optimal. A lossless compressor specially tuned for JPEG files could decode the quantized coefficients and losslessly encode them in a more efficient manner, producing a file that saves a few percent compared to the equivalent JPEG bitstream. Then on decompression, it would decode these coefficients and reencode them back into a JPEG file.
I believe what they meant was that you would not be able to apply a lossless algorithm to the original data stream and achieve greater compression than applying a lossy algorithm. Your composite algorithm is just a more efficient lossy algorithm.
If we look at the original statement from an information theoretic point of view, the GP's statement should be easily understood. With a lossless algorithm, you have to encode all of the original information and restore it. Assuming an optimal encoding, it will still take a minimum number of bits to fully realize all of the original data on decompression. With a lossy encoding scheme, I can reduce the number of bits in the original stream before using the same optimal encoding. With fewer bits to represent it should be obvious that the encoded bitstream will always be smaller.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
