90 karma · joined January 20, 2009
Yes, but she doesn't seem to know what "it" is.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/12/5s-fingerprint-s...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9994089/DVLA-made-10m...
This is how car parking companies get your home address from your number plate to write you threatening letters.
The key point for me is why is concentration of sugar in mg/cl? Why not mg/l, or g/l, or oz/gallon? Each one would give a different answer, and all are equally justifiable. (There is also the weird idea that a decrease in pH of 1, which is 10 times the concentration of H+, would therefore be 10 times as bad.)
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-st...
One problem with impact factors is the way that a few articles can account for the majority of citations. For instance, a bioinformatics method that is widely used could attract thousands of citations, boosting the impact factor of the journal by a few points. This method doesn't solve this, as it expressly focuses on the top n articles and ignores the impact of the remainder. For instance, PLoS One's score of 100 is because the top 100 articles got 100 citations - it says nothing about the distribution of the rest.
However, the review is clearly heavily scripted (do Teslas really just run out of power and then require pushing down the road?). In the UK, the powers-that-be at the BBC have recently taken a dim view of this sort of constructed TV posing as reality (after "Socksgate" and "Sachsgate", an explanation of which is probably beyond the scope of this discussion...).