More pseudoscience. They say that they're not sure whether this means that porn shrinks your brain, or if the shrunken brain causes porn viewing. But, this leaves out the very real possibility that this correlation means nothing whatsoever. The site below collects correlations that look pretty convincing in the graphs, but quite obviously are unlikely to be cases of causation in either direction:
If the misclassification only occurs on rare inputs then any random perturbation of that input is highly likely to be classified correctly.
The fix therefore (likely what occurs in the brain) is to add noise and average the results. Any misclassified nearby input will be swamped by the greater number of correctly classified ones.
This will actually help!
First, voice doesn't use that much data. For example, Viber (a popular VOIP app) uses 0.5MB/min which would be about 0.5GB for 1000min.
More importantly, once every one is transitioned off 3G onto 4G/LTE (i.e. VOIP over LTE) the carriers can repurpose the 3G spectrum for 4G and thereby gain more 4G/LTE capacity.
Because I already have one Facebook profile, and it's more than enough. I don't want to have to maintain another one just to keep rating Android apps or commenting on Youtube cat videos.
The deal doesn't make sense to me, but presumably it would involve Dr Dre and Jimmy Iovine being contracted to stay for some minimum amount of time, which brings a lot of clout (esp. Iovine) in the music biz.
The $3.2B price if true seems insane though. Between 2012 and 2013 Beats bought out HTC's 50% ownership for a total of $415M (25% in 2012 for $150M, 25% in 2013 for $265). So, if half the company is worth $415M, the whole thing should be worth closer to $430M, not $3.2B!
It could be cleverly disguised as a bit of MD5 but is actually something encrypted with a 33 character one time pad.
And the civilian world isn't prepared for a zombie apocalypse either, or to be suddenly attacked by hoards of man eating tigers.
Is this a slow news day?
"Yes, we can trace the changelogs in the software & note who was checking the changes and missed them, but that all can be circumvented."
Actually it can't. That's kind of the point of git.
"The fact is we don't know if Heartbleed was an honest mistake or not...we don't know who knew and when..."
We do know who and what and when, because the person who wrote it and the person who signed off on it have commented publicly about the bug.
Maybe you're thinking of Apple's "goto fail" SSL exploit where we really don't know who or what or when and probably never will because it's not likely Apple is going to release their RCS logs.
This technique works best when combined with cold fusion. Also, don't forget about step 3.
You're problem isn't that you're too old to learn, but rather that (per your own description) you were never that good to begin with. Any fool can do simple programming.
Ok, how about Draw Something?
Zynga paid $180 million for Draw Something's 10 million users, tried to monetize the userbase by adding the sort of pay-to-win "features" that ruined Words With Friends, and they all left.
Facebook says they don't, law suits against Facebook Ireland say they do (and that it's a violation of EU data privacy laws).
Personally, I think it would be too easy for a company that has the data on hand, and no concept of "boundaries" or "no, that's creepy" to resist. They already have millions of users complete address books from the find a friend feature, faces of people they know IRL tagged in photos, locations from check-ins, etc. it's just a matter of writing the right queries to tie them all together into a barebones profile. They either built shadow profiles for non-FB-users until the legal complaints started, or they still do but they keep them in US data centers where "your data is our trade secret" trumps "I never agreed to that!".
They may not even need any fine print. Accepting compensation can affect your right to seek damages later.
Too late, you already have a Facebook account, everyone on the internet does.
You just don't know the password yet.
In practice, I believe that the present text-based programming paradigm artificially restricts programming to a much simpler logical structure compared to those commonly accepted and used by EEs. For example, I used to say "structured programming" is essentially restricting your flow chart to what can be drawn in two dimensions with no crossing lines. That's not strictly true, but it is close. Since the late 1970s, I've remarked that software is the only engineering discipline that still depends on prose designs.
You appear to be thinking about a very limited subset of software where the essence is captured by the "two dimensional" control flow.
As Fred Brooks famously wrote: "Show me your [code] and conceal your [data structures], and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your [data structures], and I won't usually need your [code]; it'll be obvious.''
Nowadays he probably would have updated that pithy formulation to include mention of your threading model as well as data structures.
If you start trying to visualize the dynamic behavior of complex synchronization-heavy multi-threaded programs or ones with significant non-trivial shared data structures, then I can assure you there'll be plenty of crossed lines!
The time when most programs could be described by flowcharts was probably 40 years ago. We've moved on a bit since then!
Happiness is twin floppies.
