Carbon dating can't say anything about dinosaurs (in the colloquial definition) because dinosaurs went extinct >>50k years ago and CD doesn't work after such long time spans.
1,901 karma · joined January 16, 2016
For example, see "Some recent developments in bicycle dynamics" (2007). Especially the folklore section:
"The world of bicycle dynamics is filled with folklore. For instance, some publications persist in the necessity of positive trail or gyroscopic effect of the wheels for the existence of a forward speed range with uncontrolled stable operation. Here we will show, by means of a counter example,that this is not necessarily the case.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bb70/d679c5a2ff67dd2a1a51f2...
Temperature. Sometimes you read that it's a measure of warmth; sometimes cold. Aren't hot and cold opposites?
Yes, hot and cold are opposites, but in a way they give the same kind of information. That's also true for information and randomness. Specifically, little randomness means more (certain) information.
Fermat's Last Theorem (book) by Simon Singh is the source to check out if you're interested in the details of how it eluded mathematicians and a general idea of how the problem was solved, without getting too technical. It's a great story well told.
> As long as 1) every contact does not result in an infection, and 2) a large percentage of people with the disease are asymptomatic and don't realize they have it, I can't see how this sort of app is valuable. If we had cheap, fast, and accurate testing for everyone on demand...maybe. But I still don't think so.
> So I agree [...] that this is primarily an exercise in that false syllogism: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it. It's techies proposing tech solutions to what is primarily a social problem.
I won't comment on the art for sale, because I think it is too much in the eye of the beholder but I will give some feedback on your website and concept.
- Why fixed installments? Why not say "this piece costs 300$ buy now, or pay 10 installments of 35$ or 20x20$" (forget the numbers, just an example).
- why are there so few pictures of the work? If I buy a piece of art I want to look at it from all angles, get up close, see the structure, see it from far, see the frame etc.
- since you got excited from seeing artists' workspace, why not show them to us? Why not show those cool warehouses/storage containers/houses where the art is piled floor to ceiling?
- When I click on an artist's bio, the last thing I want to see is a full-bleed picture of his face. I want to see where he works, how he is inspired or how this piece was formed.
- out of curiosity: how did you come up with the 30/70 split between fees/artist's check? How do the artists respond? Have you had anyone say the fees are too high?
The author, by the way, is a Dutch professor of Security, Privacy and Identity at the Radboud University (Nijmegen). His website is here: http://www.cs.ru.nl/~bart/
In addition to letting the Chinese (and possibly US) government in on the encryption keys, the encryption scheme is also badly broken (ECB mode of AES). Prof. Matthew Green has written many articles about AES and encryption more generally and I recommend his blog if you are interested (even as a lay person).
https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2011/12/01/how-not-...
Congrats on your launch. Just wanted to tell you that there's another service called PDF eXpress that's in use for IEEE conferences to make sure the authors conform to the given template. I know it's not exactly the same name, but might be worth looking into viz. copyright or trademarks.
More info on PDF eXpress: https://www.ieee.org/conferences/publishing/pdfexpress.html
https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/2019/02/14/adventures-in-netfli...
I understand: it's frustrating and maybe undeserved that a service has banned you. But comparisons to the Second World War, concentration camps and the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany are really, really not appropriate. Take a breath.
This is a letter signed by non-experts (albeit sometimes scientists/engineers). To me, it comes off as the climate-change denier letters or 9/11 "truthers" letters.
Please let the experts do their job. Don't spread uninformed opinions backed up by Facebook posts and panicked researchers with expertise "relevant to virus spreading" such as electronics, architecture and art history.
Be safe out there but don't let the fear and resulting panic of this virus be worse than the virus itself.
- What is the false positive rate?
- What is the false negative rate?
- Considering the above, what is the efficacy of mass testing?
(Not saying it is or isn't effective, hard numbers are necessary)
If Helsinki comes up with a plan, within a year, at the cost of 1M, to decarbonize their city's heating and then takes 5-10 years to implement the plan, they will be carbon neutral within 6-11 years. Pretty good, right?
What's your plan?
There is a simplified explanation of the mechanism here [1], from which the following is taken:
> Simplified, cum-ex trading works something like this:
> Party One [..] "lends" its stock to Party Two, a bank. Under the agreement, the title and ownership of the stock is temporarily transferred to the borrower in return for a fee. [..]
> Party Two then sells the shares with-dividend to Party Three fractionally before the Record Date [i.e. dividend soon-to-be-payed]. However, the shares are delivered without-dividend just after.
> Like a magic trick, the shares "disappear" fractionally before the Record Date and "reappear" with a new owner just after. The aim is to obscure exactly who – Party One, Two or Three – owns the stock on the Record Date. As a result, two parties can simultaneously claim ownership of the one stock.
> Up until 2011, a loophole in the German tax code allowed both Party One and Party Three [..] to claim a tax reimbursement. All colluding parties would then split the gains.
[1] https://theconversation.com/the-robbery-of-the-century-the-c...
Others don't have customers, they trade with their own money (not just small-time traders, by the way).
Sorry but I'm not impressed by this number, for various reasons:
- aggregate benchmark means some average of predictions from wall street investors, which is not the "state of the art" to beat, you should beat the best performing funds. Related: the best (and worst) funds are private and don't (all) report performance. Therefore, they are likely not included in the benchmark used and therefore the benchmark is biased.
- 57% doesn't seem that much (only slightly better than chance). Also, there is no variance number
- if they 'win' 1$ in 57% of the cases but 'lost' 2$ in the remaining 43% of the cases it's still a net loss. No numbers are given
- not clear if they are after-casting, i.e. whether they tuned the predictions after the fact happened. In other words: How well does the algorithm perform if you turn it on now and leave it for a year?
[1] The entry is very short on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleuston#Neuston
See details here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3794
Edit: the directivity of such a large telescope is also big. Around 45 dBi at the lowest frequency (70 MHz). That means the telescope is not very sensitive to radiation from sources near the horizon and more sensitive to radiation coming from it's pointing direction (closer to zenith).
Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not entirely sure what you didn't mean but here's my best-effort attempt.
I think my confusion came from the example you cited in your previous post, about the Honda Jet that was removed from a game. The game, as I understand from [1], essentially includes a model of the Honda Jet which is an accurate 3D model of the real-world Honda Jet. It also bears the same name. None of your "common examples" go this far, they do 'resemble' the product that is allegedly sued over, but they are not 1:1 3D (computer model) renditions of the real-world products and are not named the same.
> Stealing models byte for byte is obviously a copyright issue, as is stealing music
Glad we agree.
> The issue is that companies can trademark the "form" of their products and therefore demand licencing fees
This is where we disagree. As a (hypothetical) "creator", I would like to exert control over what I produce, in line with the law, except when I decide to licence it in some liberal fashion (GPL/MIT/CC whatever). How is replicating a 3D model of a plane, along with the name, not an infringement of the rights of the creator? If you want to respond, please keep in mind that we are talking about current copyright and trademark law, not some utopia in which new laws can be enacted willy-nilly.
> they couldn't just make their own mailbox because USPS would attempt to sue them
Really? There is not a single mailbox design that doesn't violate USPS' copyright?!
I will concede that copyright terms are long, but not indefinite (although for practical purposes they may appear indefinite).
Finally, I would like to discuss this claim:
> Model a military jet designed entirely with taxpayer money
On the surface it seems ridiculous. But why would the government (1) outsource the contract to the listed companies and then (2) agree to terms which state that the copyright/trademark belongs to the outsourcing companies? If you think about both (1) and (2) it's either a major flaw in how government contracts work (could be...) or the companies want the intellectual property and have "priced it in" into the dollar value of the contracts. Essentially, if the IP was government property, the military jet would cost more taxpayer dollars. What do you think? Honest question.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-je...
The fact that you did the effort of making the mailbox in a drawing program or re-recording the song doesn't mean its suddenly free of copyright.