## Comment Re: What are they talking about? (Score 1) 25

Yeah, I'm just not sure why this is interesting.

Compare cell phone plans using **Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool**
×

Yeah, I'm just not sure why this is interesting.

It says "a high level general description" a bunch of times. It's not enough information to do anything with.

The summary mentions security a bunch of times, but it says nothing about any specific security measures or requirements. So I clicked through to the article. The article is similar to the summary: no specifics. It links to a long "requirements" document.

What does the document "require" regarding security? Answer: a written plan. 5G networks should write down their plan and send it to the FCC. It should have some specific list of headings and sub-parts.

So the result of this is

Can you link to something authoritative so I can cure my ignorance?

Sorry, I didn't find anything definitive either. However, it follows from the normal use for ratios less than unity. The only difference is the magnitude. Taking "two times" to be equivalent to "200%", and "1/2 times" (or simply "1/2") to be equivalent to "50%":

50% as fast (as the original) = 1/2 (times) as fast = 0.5 * original speed

100% as fast = one times as fast = 1 * original speed

200% as fast = two times as fast = 2 * original speed

50% faster (than the original) = 1/2 (times) faster = (0.5 * original speed) + original speed

100% faster = one times faster = (1 * original speed) + original speed = 2 * original speed

200% faster = two times faster = (2 * original speed) + original speed = 3 * original speed

The expression has two parts. The first can be either "X%" or "X times", both relative to the original amount. If the second part is "as fast" or "as much" (etc.) then this is the final result. If the second part is a relative term like "faster" or "more" then this implies addition, and the first amount, after multiplication, is the difference between the result and the original amount.

Few would disagree with the statement that "50% faster" is equivalent to "150% as fast", and not "50% as fast", but for some reason many become confused by "200% faster" when the formula is exactly the same.

You forget what OS this is....

This is a undocumented feature.

This raises a question: Why do astronomers use irregular units like "light years" and "parsecs" instead of the SI units and prefixes used in every other scientific discipline? Is it just a matter of custom, like the use of English(-ish) units in the U.S.? The SI units would not be any more awkward to work with, and would avoid the need for complex conversions:

distance from Earth to the Sun (1.00 AU) = 150 Gm (gigameters, G=10^9)

distance to Proxima Centauri (1.3 parsecs) = 40. Pm (petameters, P=10^15)

estimated size of the universe (46 billon light years) = 44 Ym (yottameters, Y=10^24)

Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.

Let's try it this way: "100% faster" and "1 times faster." Do you see how your statement is provably false, now?

Sorry, but the AC is right. "100% faster" = "1 times faster" = "2 times as fast".

"X times as fast" = X * original speed

"X times faster" = original speed + (X * original speed)

... "as slow" would seem to need to be a comparison to a value measured from a reference point

"slowness" = 1 / "fastness" (a.k.a. speed)

Say that an object is moving at 5 meters per second. Its "slowness" is, equivalently, one second per five meters, or 0.2 seconds per meter. "50% faster" would be 50% * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s faster than 5 m/s, or 7.5 m/s in total. "50% slower" would be 50% * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m slower than 0.2 s/m, or 0.3 s/m in total, or 3.333... m/s.

(Intuitively, "50% slower" means that it takes 50% more time to cover the same distance.)

"Twice as fast" = 2 * 5 m/s = 10 m/s.

"Half as slow" = 1/2 * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m, or 10 m/s.

"Half as fast" = 1/2 * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s.

"Twice as slow" = 2 * 0.2 s/m = 0.4 s/m, or 2.5 m/s.

*It's never Apple's problem. It's always "you're doing it wrong".*

Bullshit. The single time I had a hardware issue with an iPhone (stuck sleep/wake button), I took it to the store, showed them the issue, had my SIM transferred to a new unit and was walking out the door 15 minutes later.

-jcr

100% free if you don't have a completely repulsive personality.

The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?

Global warming may have cause the weather pattern changes, but it does not change the fact that if you build in the low lands, you have to expect flooding because it will absolutely happen with a 100% guarantee.

The only alternative that would offer searching, filtering, sorting (in general: querying) features that you need to work with raw data (or even long lists) would be Access.

Or one of the perfectly adequate free alternatives, like LibreOffice Base.

Samsung and HTC glue the battery behind the LCD so you damage the screen trying to get it out, and they have the awesome effect of screen cracks when they swell at end of life.

$1.00 for a really good lunch compared to our $10.00? yeah their cost of living is a LOT lower.

you dont die if you dont have a $800 smartphone.

They do. you just dont buy them direct from samsung. you can always buy refurbs from carriers. And any warranty return for a new phone is always replaced with a used refurb.

My favorite part of buying a $600 phone is getting a used one that is all scratched up

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.