Slashdot Mirror

The book is purely on the subject of random numbers and random number generation.

Such a book has not been published yet. At least a readable one hasn't, as far as I can tell.

https://www.degruyter.com/view...

Chi-squared test comes close.

Not nearly as close as the Markov-Renye min entropy test or the least common value test.

In fact tests of randomness fill the largest two chapters in my book on random number generators.
https://www.degruyter.com/view...

Available at all good internet portals sometime later this year.

A link I was trying to cite that didn't go through in my post, regarding said recent study: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/for.2016.14.issue-4/for-2016-0040/for-2016-0040.pdf

For what it's worth, many of these attack vectors have been known for a while (see https://www.degruyter.com/view...) - it was only a matter of desire for someone to weaponize them.

I'll respond factually:

This: http://frac.org/initiatives/am... is NOT a peer-reviewed study with any of the data. Maybe your contention is that it'(s based on such a paper which is susbtantiated with the necessary data, but what is on that page on itself clearly isn't.

This: http://www.basicincomecanada.o... [basicincomecanada.org] does contain papers, of which I already had read 4 prior to you giving me the link. All failed to answer my exact question, however, and a cursory look at the others (granted, I've not read them all) shows that most of them are pertaining to the local experiments we already spoke about. I'm not sure if you are aware what would be an adequate response to my question would be, but it's NOT detailing those experiments and the claims of their dioto benefits. My question pertains to this: if you implement a national-wide UBI, who is going to pay for it and in what matter - susbtantiated by actual numbers and calculations of how this would be sponsored.

These papers, as far as I can see, do NOT answer this, and that's because even when they go into the finances that made them possible, it's clear who made it possible and where the monetary support to implement it came from: from the government/state. As said before, this is hardly surprising, and seen the local aspect of the experiments versus the wealth of an entire nation, it is no wonder it doesn't show any problems concerning the financing of such small UBI-experiments.

My question is: how will it be paid for if you apply A NATIONAL UBI? clearly, such a thing will be orders of magnitudes bigger, which means you can not just use your ordinary taxes an system as it is now, and still expect to be able to pay for it. NONE of the papers address this particular issue with any concrete numbers. At least as far as I've seen - but if I'm wrong in this, please point out the papers you think actually do , concerning this specific question of mine.

I'm always wondering why so many people, when being asked a specific question, think a buckload of links which do not deal with the question asked is the answer. Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful for the links, since they seem at least somewhat better than the average articles on UBI, but That doesn't mean they are all relevant to the specific objection I raised. Take "A wider lens: an analysis of Kesselman’s view of a basic income" for instance. Since I haven't read it, I took the time reading it completely - but to no avail for an answer to my question. It's full of claims of how wonderful such a system would be for the people, it has very little substantiation of facts and numbers - I mean, it just doesn't, sorry - and nowhere is being explained where a national-wide UBI which would cost tens of billions would be paid by. He even seems to claim things like invalidity would get additional benefits on top of the UBI, so it would make things even more expensive.

Now, I'm not making making a definite judgement on all of what is claimed there. It might well be that it's the best thing since sliced bread. But it doesn't answer the question: who's going to pay for it. Can we agree on that?

This: http://www.degruyter.com/view/... [degruyter.com] is a mere summary, which does no good in hinting at an adequate answer neither. The rest is behind a paid wall, and I'm not going to pay for it. In essence, it's not a substantiation of what you said on itself, thus. Do you imply that it is? Are you confirming the paper itself gives a direct answer to my questions? Did you read that paper yourself? In that case, could you please simply give the answer to my question yourself? Because the summary on itself - which it linked to - is pretty worthless in this regard, I'm sure you agree. The same goes for many of the sublinks of your other link. "Basic Income: Econ

WHO is going to pay for the UBI.

Now you're just being obtuse. I give you links to peer-reviewed studies and you come back and tell me you need to see the raw data.

Here's a list of 21 peer-reviewed papers on UBI.

http://www.basicincomecanada.o...

Here's a link to a journal that is nothing BUT peer-reviewed papers showing how UBI works.

http://www.degruyter.com/view/...

When you've finished those, come back to me and let's see if you're still asking to "see the numbers".

Well, you are focusing on TeX, but LaTeX is a different issue. TeX is "just" its implementation language. Now I'll grant you that TeX as a programming language sucks: programming in TeX is about as much fun, probably less, as writing autoconf macros in m4.

Yet something like the "Kritische Gesamtausgabe Ernst Troeltsch" is written using LaTeX, employing the bigfoot package for multiple-layered footnotes.

This spells out an original text with footnotes, uses footnotes inside of either to point out different variants in different original publications (the currently edited volume contains some "variant" running through more than 20 pages), and the current publisher also has his own footnotes anchored in all of the above.

The customary process (explaining the price tag) is to print out each apparatus on paper, send all that stuff to home workers who do the page breaks and page arrangement using scissors and glue, they send the results back and they are scanned in as a template for the actual typesetting.

Fascinating. Turnaround time probably a month, and a renowned volume has 6 iterations in its budget. Explains the price tag. Using the LaTeX-based process (yes, the editors use some TeXshell, don't ask me which one, for entering all that stuff), an iteration takes something like 20 minutes. Which is startingly long (something like the source code of TeX typeset using Weave+TeX, takes a similar amount of pages and probably 5 seconds), but that's because a lot of page and line break combinations are scored and the best variant is chosen.

It's astonishing how much work is between "this meets the formal specifications as best as they could be specified" and "this no longer looks gratuitously crappy to the casual observer". Took several volumes to get all of that honed (work started with the simpler ones). But the point is that the comparatively open bowels of TeX facilitated combining its own scoring methods with external scoring and picking overall solutions based on that. The code is awful. It is structured and modular, but if you dig in, you get a headache.

You can't do that using Word. Not manually, and most certainly not automatically. Word does not expose the required information or hooks. Heck, Word can't even do a paragraph-long linebreak optimization (like even plain TeX does), so it does not actually have the kind of information you need for scoring well.