But sure America, go and screw with them, because FREEDOM.
Brute forced with a common dictionary attack in a few milliseconds.
I don't think you are understanding how exponents work. Or dictionary attacks I suppose.
Why not just prioritize all traffic by previous traffic used per billing cycle? So light users generally get top prioritization and heavy users get gradually lower prioritization but nobody has to pick a number where it suddenly switches form one category to another.
I was thinking the same thing. When there is no congestion, everyone gets top speed, otherwise priotiize the lightest users. Heck - the light users probably won't make much of a dent in available bandwidth anyway.
From my experience it seems that the reason for most phone searches on the Canadian side are to make sure that you aren't dodging taxes when you bring something in to the country.
Actually, no. It's generally for two other purposes -
1) People who claim they are not coming to Canada to work / move here, but who are entering the country with all of their worldly belongings. The CBSA will search a phone to find emailed job offers, texts from friends saying "Have a great new life in Canada!", photos from going-away parties and calendar appointments with entries like "first day at new job."
2) Child pornography. If you're typically a single, 40ish, dweebyish, white male travelling home alone from a vacation in a region in Asia know for child sex tourism you may get pulled aside and have your phone and computer searched for incriminating pictures.
Currently the death rate is already largely random
No it isn't. There is some random elements, but it you're familiar with crash statistics, you'll know that once you take out the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc, the chances of death on the road drop dramatically.
You missed my point by chopping off what I said. Was that deliberate? It seems needlessly argumentative. The quote continued with "anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control..."
I don't disagree with the useful information you have added to the discussion.
While you have some control over your own behaviour, your odds of encountering someone else being infleuenced by "the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc." are largely random - and even more so if you are not a driver. We often have an illusion of complete control over our destiny when we are behind the wheel. Autonomous systems seem likely to reduce many of these common factors in the other cars on the road, so I suspect they will become more common if they in fact do so.
Well, transfer the ketchup from the regular container to this new slippery surfaced bottle. Wait..
Good idea. Where can I buy one?
Sure, welcome to the science of 2012! Unfortunately, that means it's not news.
Oh, I was going to say that!
Maybe in another five years we will have actual products that can be bought!
I saw back in the 1990s that some reasearcher had made some spoons coated with superhydrophobic coatings that he used as honey spoons - I would love to purchase something like that. I'm still waiting.
We're living in the future... maybe next year.
Within a few percent of the speed of light is interesting. But even more interesting, and not stated is whether it is a few percent slower than light, or a few percent faster? I'll bet it is slower unless I hear otherwise.
The measurements don't give that detail. Of course all the theoretical underpinnings are based on "c" beinging the max speed in the universe, so I would not be one to take that bet, but I don't think there is as of yet any measurements that rule it out - it could be a tiny bit faster or slower than "c". My bet is that it is exactly "c" and that the graviton is a massless force carrier.
If gravitational waves move faster than light, we should be able to contact them now.
I think the LIGO data puts pretty strict bounds on the speed of gravitational waves - they are within a few percent of the speed of light, certainly not many times faster.
Since "analysts" keep claiming that phone are replacing consoles and desktops for gaming, let's look at this from a business perspective. That is equivalent to a single video game purchase on another platform. That is virtually nothing at all in comparison to other platforms right now.
Going from average sales of five video game purchases from one group to one video game purchases from a larger group can result in increased revenue if the larger group is large enough. In this case someone might say the phone is "replacing" the console/desktop when realy the developer could be the one switching platforms and possibly game types. Getting a small fraction of a larger pool might be more attractive.
One thing for sure, the computers are getting better and the humans are at best about the same as always.
Either this human is gettng worse as I age, or I am becoming more aware of how piss-poor I have always been.
And we need to compare apples to apples. A human pulls out of their driveway and parks in a dense parking lot. A human drives in all weather. Either you have to take those accidents out of the stats for humans and only apply stats for humans in the conditions where AI can drive, or you need to wait until AI does all these things and see how safe it is.
I don't disagree, but I can certainly imagine that there is a place for a system that can only do "highway driving" and isn't able to do parallel parking (though right now I think we might have the opposite - parking but not driving.)
Google has also done this several times as a PR stunt without the taxi fare, they let a legally blind man ride with them back in 2012.
They are charging the rider for it?
Seriously this article makes it sound like life just after a devastating conflict is better than economic prosperity because most people are equally poor.
That's pretty fucked up, and I'm calling BS.
Hey, it's not like I RTFA or anything, but I don't know that the article is saying "things are better for everyone after a devastating event" but rather they are saying, "without devastating events, history seems to indicate that things tend towards increased inequality". The data doesn't seem to be particularly controversial. If in fact the authors are correct in this analysis, it does seem like it is something worth knowing. As to being "pretty fucked up" - yeah, lots of social/behavioral science results are weird - 'cause people are weird.
How to use or apply this knowledge is a bit of a puzzle. We would first need to have some general concensus on what type of income or wealth distriubtion we value as a society (a difficult concensus to come to no doubt) and then try to figure out what to do to work towards that distribution without needing to resort to the type of devastating events that are talked about. I think most people would agree that, other things being equal, having a higer social mobility rate is better for a society than having a lower social mobility rate. But of course "other things" are never equal, so deciding what should be changed is difficult.
"Social mobillity" is a broad measure of how easy it is to start out at the bottom and move upwards (or the other way around). We usually like to think that where you end up is mostly determined by how hard you work and how smart you are and that sort of thing, but unfortunately it is also largely infleuenced by lots of factors outside the control of you or even your extended family or social group.
You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.