Google Fi is about combining multiple cellular networks, while Scratch Wireless only uses a single cellular network. Both let you seamlessly roam between cellular and wifi.
Which you get when using a T-Mobile phone abroad, where it can use multiple cell networks and can switch mid call between Wifi and various cellular networks, or at least the old UMA phones could do some time around 2003. Perhaps they could not go from one WiFi network to another mid-call, but will Google's phone really do this?
However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film. It either sits in a vault somewhere, decomposing (maybe even on nitrate film - egad!), or maybe it was transferred onto videotape before its copyright expired.
Counter argument: if the copyright holder felt that there was money to be made by transferring to another medium and selling, it would have already happened.
Instead, all those nitrate copies are locked away and will either burn or decompose. Many of those old movies have copies lurking away, open to non-copyright holders if they had the right to make updated copies and release them. But copyright prevents this.
Just like the ability for phones to recieve network-wide notifications, when this capability was used in California, many people turned it off, because the notification was broadcast far too wide -- across all of California for something taking place in San Diego.
I predict the same for this. The capability will be misused and then disabled by the users of the app.
Finance.yahoo.com, is also dying. Thank you CEO Marissa Mayer, you have taken what used to be a valuable and interesting resource for investors and completely fucking ruined it.
Maybe it has gotten worse under Mayer, but to be fair, Yahoo finance was "unimproved" some years ago, turning from a usable set of forums to pages full of unreadable bling. What I don't understand is why Mayer (who was supposed to be responsible for Google's simple, spartan look) hasn't done the same for Yahoo. Or perhaps she has -- I can't remember the last time that I visited a Yahoo page. That's the nature of the problem -- once you drive your users away, they don't come back, irrespective of how the site changes.
All we know from the study is that the false positive rate was about 89%
Exactly. We don't know the false positive rate in the cases where the evidence was used. You can't claim that my speculation is not valid, yet yours is valid.
This isn't a case of a random subset of a larger population. In every case, there was a decision made whether or not to use the hair evidence. That decision was based on the evidence available. Thus, you can't assume that you have a random subset of the larger population. Thus your projection of an 11% false positive rate on the subset isn't valid.
Finally, a lack of other evidence would suggest a higher likelihood of innocence, which would imply a higher liklihood that the hair evidence was false.
There is nothing indicate that the rate would be any different among samples that were used in court.
When hair "evidence" was used in a little over 10% of the times that it was available, it's reasonable to think that a lot of selection is going on.. It's reasonable to assume that those cases where the hair evidence was used were not typical. It's very reasonable to assume that the reason the hair evidence was used was lack of alternative evidence. It's not reasonable to make the assumption that the percentages would be similar when the number of cases when hair evidence was used in court is such a small proportion of the overall percentage.
In your world, lack of evidence for a proposition is evidence of an alternative proposition? You have no evidence to support your claim that the 11% of all false positives also applied to hari evidence used in court. Nothing. Nada.
it is very reasonable to assume that the 11% of false matches are over-represented in the 268 cases
Pure speculation on your part, there's nothing to support that assumption.
And your claim that the 11% false positives (of all analysis) applies to the subset cases where hair analysis evidence was used at trial? Where's your evidence to support that claim? It's no more than speculation.
You have no more evidence than I do, but at least I have a rational explanation why it's likely to be greater than 11%.
Re-reading the article, I think that I know where you got the 90% number from, but I think that you are wrong.
Firstly, as you note in another post, it's 89%, not 90% (bias showing here?)
However, more importantly, it's 89% of all the "positive" results, not 89% of those used at trial. In the 11% where there was a false match, the likelyhood of actual guilt is lower, so the amount of other evidence would be much lower, thus it is very reasonable to assume that the 11% of false matches are over-represented in the 268 cases where the hair evidence was used at trial. Thus, your estimate of 27 or 28 is likely to be very low.
Of those, the evidence was used in something like 268 trials, and a retrospective analysis of the DNA revealed that the hair did indeed match almost 90% of the time.
I don't see the 90% match through DNA testing in the article. Case to explain where it came from?
Up front confession: haven't read the article, but unless the diaries are in the public domain, isn't this pretty cut and dry?
In the USA there would also be the possibility of the extracts being fair use.
They rarely, if ever, produce results that are even vaguely related to what I'm searching for. They don't have market share because THEY SUCK.
Exactly. I find that Google produces better results for searches relating to Microsoft products.
Some time back when Microsoft was advertising their website the showed Google results side-by-side with Bing (with the intent that Bing would give more useful results), I tried the side-by-side website and the Bing side did not even load.
Why is that the government's job? Shouldn't that be the job of ISO, ANSI, or the AMA (all NGOs)?
Because they failed. Standards organizations don't get involved unless the companies in that technical field want them to be involved.
It looks like medical records companies don't want standards -- probably because they would prefer to seek an effective monopoly through proprietary standards. However, enforcing open standards benefits society and that's why government should be involved.
Government doesn't have to develop a standard, merely mandate the requirement for a standard.
Why do people who have access to the computer also have the ability to control the cameras?
Splitting responsiblity this way is such a basic and obvious security measure.