Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Random" (Score 1) 46

by jandersen (#48448687) Attached to: Study: Space Rock Impacts Not Random

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that you are not allowed by the laws of physics to simultaneously know all the initial conditions with arbitrarily high precision.

Perhaps - although this is actually not uncontroversial. There are many things surrounding the interpretation of QM that are not entirely certain - I am aware that every so often somebody comes up with a 'proof' that Heisenberg is more fundamental than simply an effect of our mode of observation. We measure properties of microscopic matter by bombarding it with particles and measuring the statistical outcome of a large number of events; the observation that particles are waves and waves have a minimum 'resolution' led to Heisenberg's original proposal, and many arguments have been put forward to the effect that this is a fundamental property of nature and impossible to get around, but there are works going on trying to achieve exactly that: a better resolution than Heisenberg's uncertainty allows us.

Comment: Re: Understanding the Indian retailers. (Score 1) 52

by K. S. Kyosuke (#48447863) Attached to: Indian Brick-and-Mortar Retailers Snub Android One Phones
Thank you for enlightening the situation. I'm a mostly rational schizoid who simply gets puzzled about such unfamiliar behavior. There's a possibility, indeed a certainty that such events actually happen around where I live, but I'm virtually certain they're a low-key event compared to this level of insanity.

Comment: Re:Three Letter Agencies? (Score 1) 109

by jandersen (#48447847) Attached to: Highly Advanced Backdoor Trojan Cased High-Profile Targets For Years

Hello, China...

OTOH, when this kind of news come out, people are usually not shy about mentioning China by name. In fact, a number of 'wealthy nation-states' in Europe as well as Israel have been mentioned on occasion when it comes to spy-ware. I don't remember the US coming up very often, so by exclusion, America does seem like a likely candidate here. And why not? it isn't as if Americans, American companies or the American state departments are particularly prudish compared to others, when it comes to this sort of thing.

Comment: Re: In Reverse (Score 1) 72

by K. S. Kyosuke (#48447835) Attached to: Extreme Shrimp May Hold Clues To Alien Life On Europa

Well, a hydrothermal vent is VERY predictable - and STEADY.

Yes, but those life forms aren't working like thermocouplers, are they? They're still not working along the lines of "let's just inject a lot of heat into a living organism and see what random stuff happens". They're just carefully digesting some of the products of reactions occurring nearby.

Comment: Re:"Random" (Score 1) 46

by jandersen (#48447787) Attached to: Study: Space Rock Impacts Not Random

Is, or is not, physics at a macro scale deterministic or not?

Yes and no. Chaos theory concerns itself with problems that are, for all (or most) practical purposes, unpredictable. IOW, these problems are, in principle, deterministic, but in practice, very difficult to solve with any degree of precision. The weather, for example - if we know the starting conditions exactly for every point on the planet (and our models were perfect), we should be able to predict the temperature, wind speed etc exactly for any point in and time, ever, and for any spot on the planet. Unfortunately, small variations in start parameters result in huge variations in end results, which is why weather forecasting is so hit and miss.

One has to accept that, in common usage, the word 'random' simply means 'chaotic' in the above sense.

Comment: bar-room statisticians (Score 1) 46

by Hognoxious (#48447451) Attached to: Study: Space Rock Impacts Not Random

It's even worse than that. Going by this quote, they're using it to mean even or homogeneous:

        contrary to what they thought, such events are not random, and these explosions may occur more frequently on certain days.

You know, like if a coin comes up heads four times in a row that's "not random".

As to the astronomy bit, this has been known since forever. The major ones have names and can even be predicted. Crapdot FTL.

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 377

by mjwx (#48446743) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Cheap and ubiquitous Self Driving Cars means

This is actually an argument for private ownership.

If they're cheap and ubiquitous to have one for everyone who wants to go to work at 8:00 (and there will be a lot of people going to work at that time) then they'll be cheap enough that they will be kept in most garages.

The problem you have is that everyone wants to go to work at the same time, but in order for a taxi-like system to be efficient it needs not to have hundreds of vehicles idle for most of the day. Depreciation, insurance costs, maintenance, cleaning and other costs on a fleet will eventually make sure that in order to cope with peak demand, prices will rise and in so doing make private ownership more attractive.

Above this, humans generally dont like to share. So Martin the middle manager can afford his own car, he would rather pay the premium for it than risk getting the same car that Danny the drunkard was vomited in last night.

Comment: Re:people drop their phones :( (Score 1) 176

by mjwx (#48446487) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

If you have a naked phone, what do you expect?

I expect it to survive an accidental drop.

I've never had a phone cover, they've all survived trips to the floor without shattering... then again I buy phones that are built properly.

Also, I tend to be a little bit careful with my things. I'd be lucky if I drop my phone every six months.

Comment: Re: OH GOODY (Score 1) 176

by mjwx (#48446451) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

Wrong. Apple are outdone on that front by Samsung, MS... You really should check your facts before showing the rest of /. how wrong you are. Some of us actually RTFA, read relevant info, and post knowingly. Hater.

Seems you need to take your own advice.

You should know that the $14 billion is for all Samsung Electronics products, everything from TV's to speakers to DVD players to car audio. It also covers things like sports team sponsorships (local and national). Of that $14 billion, only $401 Million was spent on phone advertising, Apple spent $333 Million in the same period whilst Samsung sells more phones, more models and across more segments. So on a phone to advertising dollar ratio, Apple spends a lot more.

Beyond all this, your article that you clearly didn't read demonstrated that this paid off for Samsung. Sure they tried to get an inflammatory "Apple pleasing" headline in but utterly failed as the content proved that Samsung's splurge on advertising worked. Also that article is 2 years old. The data is from 2012.

Besides, the GP was talking about hype, not advertising dollars. Apple whips the fanboys, like yourself into a huge frenzy over almost anything. The fact you need to cling onto little things like advertising spending shows how detached from reality you are.

So you really should check your own facts before showing /. how wrong you are.


See my sig.

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson