Slashdot Mirror

You completely missed the point.

He lacked vision, (let alone intelligence, awareness and knowledge.)

Anyone designing a file systems asks basic engineering questions:

* What's the use case?
* What's the maximum filename length a user would like?
* If we're going to be stuck with this thing for years how long should filenames be?

This isn't rocket science, just basic computer science. You can see the complete clusterfuck of idiotic design in the various OS File System Comparisons

Instead of picking something reasonable like 16, 24 or 32 characters, Gary pulled 8.3 chars out his ass due to his stupidity and short sightedness. He was completely ignorant of The Mother of All Demo back in 1968 (!) that demonstrated 16 key technologies:

* The personal computer
* The mouse.
* Internetworks.
* Network service discovery.
* Live collaboration and desktop/app sharing.
* Hierarchical structure within a file system and within a document.
* Cut/copy/paste, with drag-and-drop.
* Paper metaphor for word processing.
* Advanced pattern search and macro search.
* Keyword search and multiple weighted keyword search.
* Catalog-based information retrieval.
* Flexible interactive formatting and line drawing.
* Hyperlinks within a document and across documents.
* Tagging graphics, and parts of graphics, as hyperlinks.
* Shared workgroup document collaboration with annotations etc.
* Live shared workgroup collaboration with live audio/video teleconference in a window.

I'm glad he and his myopic vision of 8.3 is long dead.

So yeah, Fuck him and his stupidity for inflicting it upon the world.

It's been done, actually. Sleep as Android has such a mode (experimental), based on some research from Stanford

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

That's annoying. It implies causality but doesn't actually require it, even though the article is specifically on Causal Determinism, which is distinct from just plain determinism. I'm sure it's explained somewhere in there, but you know what? I don't care. You can have at it if you want.

I'm not American so all the Obama stuff is lost on me. The site was the clearest I found - there were others too. Here's Stanford making reference to the investment. There's quite a few more.

TL:DR; You need to learn HOW to optimize:

@37:30 -- Mike Acton: Code Clinic 2015: How to Write Code the Compiler Can Actually Optimize

- - -

> If you want speed, assembly is the ONLY option.

Total NONSENSE.

A. You keep implying this word optimization -- it doesn't mean what you think it means!

B. There are four lights, er, types of optimizations:

1. Use a lower level language
2. Micro-optimization or Bit-twidling
3. Algorithm
4. Macro or cache-orientated, aka (Data-Orientated Design)

What do these mean?

1. Use a lower level language

With bloated languages and incorrect use of C++, Java, etc., inexperienced programmers naively thing changing to a "lower level" language -- such as C or Assembly -- will help speed up their code. While it is true one has access to more programming paradigms in a low level language, i.e. you can use the carry flag as a return value instead of wasting an entire byte with assembly, this type of optimization only takes you so far before you need to look at alternatives.

2. Micro-optimizations

All good programmers should read (and understand!) these bit twiddling optimizations:

* bit-twiddling hacks
* Hackers Delight

While compilers can generate "good enough code", sometimes hand-optimized instructions can beat the compiler. e.g. Before compilers optimized division with reciprocal multiplication, a common technique for division was to manually change division into reciprocal multiplication. i.e. `/ 3` -> `* 1/3` which means you would see something like this:

int a = 123 / 3;

would be replaced with:

int b = (123 * 65536 / 3) >> 16;

Thankfully most compilers will perform these integer divisions but you can try this out with an online C compiler:

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int a = 123 / 3;
int b = (123 * 65536 / 3) >> 16;
int c = a == b;
printf( "a: %d =%d= b: %d\n", a, c, b );

return 0;
}

These types of micro-optimizations are becoming rarer and rarer as compilers (slowly) get better. However Don't assume. VERIFY your assembly output of the compiler.

Floating-point optimizations still show up. The most famous is probably John Carmack's Quake 3 Inverse Square Root

This PDF provides a very good explanation:

* http://www.lomont.org/Math/Pap...

3. Algorithm

The fastest way to optimize (from the programmer's run-time) is to replace a slower algorithm with a faster one.

i.e.

* If the common case for your data is unsorted, then replacing a dog-slow bubble sort with quick-sort will show gains.
* However, if the common caseis that the is 99% mostly sorted, then changing algorithms may not always help.

This is where most people start to optimize. BUT, notice how I said "Common Case". There is a _higher level_ of optimization we can do:

4. Macro or Cache-orientated.

The 0th rule in optimization is:

Know Thy Data

When you optimize you need to optimize for the common case. This means understanding data flow, Memoization, and transforms. You _must_ question ALL assumptions, knowns, and unknowns. What, exactly, are you trying to do? i.e. Printing Primes and Printing

For instance, it is often touted that infant mortality rates are lower in certain countries. While that Statistic is accurate as a statement, the two countries are measuring it differently. In the US, Premature births of all types and kinds are included, where they are not in other countries. And if you include premature birth rates, the Actual statistics flip.

Got a citation for that? Because I have one that shows you are spouting more libertarian BS:

"The reporting differences are a minor part of the story but not an excuse for why the U.S has such a high mortality rate."

A recent post from David Dill from Stanford University stated that "Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy"[1]. Given that viruses and security breaches seem to be on the rise lately, do you see e-voting being established in our lifetime? [1]: https://engineering.stanford.e...

People can be convinced of anything, including memory of experiences they never had.

That is difficult to pull off and requires a concerted effort. Even the experts cannot induce memories very well. Is there any evidence of such an effort in this case?

We're not talking about inducing memory from scratch, just leading questions that get people to misremember things. Or sometimes people do the misremembering on their own, and when you misremember an event, the mind solidifies the false narrative that you came up with and it seems more sure and concrete to you. A well-known example among my age group (40s) involves the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Many people remember "seeing" the disaster live, on television in their classrooms, something that was rarer than we remembered. While some classrooms had televisions wheeled in to watch the shuttle launch, what often happened is that they heard about the disaster when it happened, then they saw footage later of the shuttle explosion, yet the memory of "watching the shuttle launch as it happened" was formed and reinforced. They weren't lying, not knowingly. But their eyewitness recollection is faulty.

The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies had an interesting article called The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony on the problems with eyewitness testimony, and why its reputation within legal circles has fallen while its reputation outside is near-infallible.

There are systems such as SRP that never send the password to the server, don't lose the benefits of hashing, is salted, and don't allow impersonation of the user elsewhere if server is broken into (since the server isn't even keeping a hash of the password)

Dear /.

the underlying doubt comes from Descartes' deliberations on how to obtain knowledge (chapter 3, "meditations"):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

The re-loaded version for the 21st century can be found here:

http://www.simulation-argument...

The guy who wrote it got his own department at the University of Oxford (to study "existential risk" -- earth and life on it are threatened by the power button on a space-age playstation ...):

https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/

Best regards,

Oliver

Why would you expect the code for this program to be of such a size that the human mind couldn't grasp and verify

Colloquially, if its bigger than "Hello World", it has bugs. Lots of "Hello World"s have bugs too.

But if you are talking about Formal Verification, that's actually a research topic in CS. Its possible to do, but very expensive. Usually you have to use special compilers designed for that, like SPARK. You ever heard of anyone using SPARK? Well, that should tell you how common that is.

But even then, that doesn't mean you don't have bugs. As Math/CS god Donald Knuth once said of a relatively more simple queuing algorithm: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

Computers can't do this for you either. That's part of Computability Theory. You've got the Halting Problem in general, and Rice's Theorem more specific to mathematical transforms. There's a halfway (but not great) discussion of this on this SE Question.

Sure, now tell me I had privilege but I just didn't know it ... you're right (about not knowing it). I saw no evidence of it in any part of my life.

I agree that "white privilege" is overstated and is frequently used to attack and gain unfair advantages.

However to your point about not knowing advantages...

In 2009, 4.7% of the black adult male population was in prison, as compared to .7% of the adult white male population. source

Also how you are 4x more likely to be shoot by the police as a black person than a white person. source

Anecdotally, you must have heard of the tongue-in-cheek crime "driving while black," and the "black lives matter." Also anecdotally you must have heard how when a police officer catches a kid with drugs how a white kid will be let off with a warning whereas the black kid gets arrested and gets a record (which in turn will cause problems with future employment).

That's not even getting into things like unconscious bias when hiring managers hire employees, or even unconscious bias when a student is taking a test in school. (Studies show if people think they are disadvantaged then they'll do more poorly, and even if it is unfair minorities think they are disadvantaged. source )

Of course there is questions of reverse causation, or exaggeration, or "you don't fix racism with racism," so numerous other valid counterarguments. But to say that white people have no "white privilege" is also an exaggeration.

...Wow. I wonder how that got missed?

Okay. First thing, realize that neither liberal nor conservative philosophies are particularly pacifistic. Second, that there's a difference between an individual using force, and the government doing so.

Individuals and government both have the right to use violence to prevent imminent harm by violence. Otherwise, if you have been harmed through the improper actions of another, the correct action is to ask for redress, and if that is not satisfactory, to sue. After the court passes judgement, yes, violence may ultimately be involved in the enforcement of the court order. Such is life.

Some cites:
source
"One possible position is extreme pacifism, according to which individuals are never permitted to use non-consensual force against others. Another is moderate pacifism, according to which individuals are permitted to use non-consensual force against others only when necessary in self-defense (or the defense of others). This moderate view would allow the use of force against a person to prevent her from wrongfully using force against others, but it would not allow the use of force to rectify past violations (e.g., punish or extract compensation from the rights-violator). Most libertarian positions would allow the use of force for cases of rectification. Many would allow the use of force for retributive punishment, but some—Barnett (1998), for example—reject retributive punishment and insist that compensation for wrongful harms is the sole justification for the rectificatory use of force."
Non-agression principle

Like many philosophical points, a couple sentences is far from enough to adequately explain such a complicated topic.

It's even more complicated in that as a moderate libertarian, I'm willing to set aside the non-agression principle in cases where there's sufficient evidence that holding to it will lead to increased human suffering. It's just that I hold that, in general, it's the best option, and that any breaking from it needs to be carefully weighed and considered.

Stanford parser seems to come up with something reasonable, but I have no idea what that sentence mans.

No, it would be silly to make an inconsistent language, rather it would be incomplete.

Not necessarily: paraconsistent logic

So you don't care about a decade long series of heat waves that caused the dust bowl. Which resulted is massive repeated crop failures that then resulted in the Great Depression. If your "models" conveniently ignore all data prior to 1960 so that they don't have to explain an actual disaster what credit should be given to predicting worse events in the future? As for your referenced "data". I didn't say there wasn't more CO2, and the chart from the Mauna Loa Observatory is cute. How about the Optical Depth data that shows the SO2 light reflection that is relevant to what I claimed, and to what the article claims to have found. Or how about the GHCN dataset which if you dive in and pull out the Precipitation, and Evaporation you have some interesting problem with Global Warming. One 'Claim' from Global Warming is the increase in heat increases evaporation, increasing humidity, thus increasing rain and Precipitation. The problem is you get this nice little graph that I'm sure you're going to ignore because all these lovely scientists cant possibly be wrong. It doesn't even matter to you that NASA predicted that cycle 24 would be particularly bad. If my analysis is correct, which it is, and nasa's prediction was correct, which it was, then there is a serious problem. It means that the Pan Evaporation mesurments were sensitive enough to pick up a nasty level of solar activity, but not sensitive enough to pick up your phantom global warming since 1950 when the US Geologic Survey fine tuned the measurement process because they needed to know how much evaporated off of lake mead that the prior data was so variant it was unusable. If I'm right, which I am, then that means Global warming from 1950 to 2010 is nothing compared to what the CME's have been doing to us. And this all brought to you by the Sun's northern field deciding to take some time off. So yea your 25% increase in overall CO2 since 1960 is pretty meaningless in the scope of the overall data because if it was It should have moved the evaporation long before 2010.

Huh. I didn't realize the brain was a Turing machine. I'll await the publication of your paper.

No need to post a new paper, there is prior art from 20 years ago:

Stanford University from 1995

I quote:

"Turing was interested in the question of what it means for a task to be computable, which is one of the foundational questions in the philosophy of computer science. Intuitively a task is computable if it is possible to specify a sequence of instructions which will result in the completion of the task when they are carried out by some machine. Such a set of instructions is called an effective procedure, or algorithm, for the task. The problem with this intuition is that what counts as an effective procedure may depend on the capabilities of the machine used to carry out the instructions. In principle, devices with different capabilities may be able to complete different instruction sets, and therefore may result in different classes of computable tasks (see the entry on computability and complexity).

Turing proposed a class of devices that came to be known as Turing machines. These devices lead to a formal notion of computation that we will call Turing-computability. A task is Turing computable if it can be carried out by some Turing machine."

By this very definition, the human brain is capable of carrying out any procedure defined as "Turing Computable", thereby making the human brain a "Turing Machine" QED.

Huh. I didn't realize the brain was a Turing machine. I'll await the publication of your paper."

and to end this, 110010001000, or Narcc or whatever account you are using to comment then mod yourself up.. because your scores and level of insightfulness do not match.. anyway, lets end this stupid meandering argument right here right now.

It is widely accepted that the human brain is a sub class of what would be termed universal turing machines.

Fortunately you do not need to wait for the publication of a paper on the subject, there is already prior art and has been for more than 20 years!

Definition of Turing Machine:

Well isn't Shannon's theory (more specifically the constraints on channel bandwidth) is already been replaced by Compressive Sensing?

No it is not. Most of the stuff involved is 99% efficient, so I simply averaged it to 90%.

Sources? Here are mine:

1) In the USA, transmission and distribution losses are estimated at 6% by the EIA. However, India (the subject of the original post) has really bad infrastructure, in comparison. Their losses are estimated at about 30% by the World Energy Council. So, I was actually way too generous when I said "90% efficient" for this part.

2) The Tesla Roadster is said to have a battery pack charge/discharge efficiency of 86% in an article from Stanford University, which claims to be drawing from a source published by Tesla itself.

3) The National Electrical Manufacturers Association requires a minimum efficiency of about 92% for some large induction motors. However, I found an answer on the Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange site indicating that Tesla uses a slightly less efficient type of motor, and also that a ~97% efficient power controller is required, which brings the real efficiency down to ~88%.

Using the exact numbers I sourced, above: 88% of 86% of 70% of 42% = 22%, which is even worse for a coal-powered electric car than what I originally posted (because I was intentionally rounding up a bit to allow for future improvements).

That link about the Prius Engine is nice! However keep in mind: that would require all new cars to use engines like this. Which they hopefully do in not to distant future.

The extremely aggressive CAFE standards recently set by the Obama administration are already pushing things hard in that direction in the USA. Admittedly, India probably won't be buying many ICE cars produced for the US market in the next decade - but then, they won't be buying fancy electrics like a Tesla, either.

Not if IBM owns both. I recall working as an operator & sysadmin on AIX machines in a previous lifetime. They were cumbersome at best, but weren't they RISC based hardware which was all the rage back then.
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...

Steveha, you admit you don't understand the paper as well as what you think you could do. I've argued that like a lot of academic writing it's badly written. I've also argued the history of science demonstrates that culture affects the way people do science, and what they get out of it. You appear to have a big problem with that general insight as it applies to a field of study you care about.

Even putting that argument to one side, the fact is you probably have no idea about the different ways population groups, such as women, are affected by glacier melt. I'm not about to summarize the paper for you.

As for the "ice is just ice" argument, anyone who believes that puts themselves in direct conflict with the theory of signs developed by the pragmatist CS Peirce, one of the most brilliant American scholars of any field in any generation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

http://news.stanford.edu/news/...

Yeah, java code in haiku format :-)

They are competitors NOW. https://web.stanford.edu/group... https://www.wilsoncenter.org/a... You simply haven't been search very hard, or honestly it seems.

Gert defines morality in the normative sense as: "a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

That actually gives a basic outline to your first question, and also your second question when you think that acting rational is beneficial.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge.

Cite? I know lots of things I don't believe in. For example, I have quite a lot of knowledge about how magic works in various fictional systems. I find it much more likely that you're mischaracterizing the belief/knowledge of epistemologists than that they're really that stupid.

I feel the same way you do, but:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...
"There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff

p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”."

certainly reinforces at least a classical view that epidemiology claims belief is necessary for knowledge (with the proviso that there are modern theories of knowledge that disagree.)
The kicker seems to be in the use of the word 'justified', which I think I'd characterize as a weasel word on Wikipedia.

Warmer Days and Longer Lives

It's interesting that ballots still list candidates in alphabetical order, despite studies showing that the position of a candidate in the ballot can influence election results (e.g. https://pprg.stanford.edu/wp-c... (PDF) and http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/4...). Our local government elections have been using randomized ballot order for a while now. Voting papers have the candidates in different orders so all candidates appear in all positions. The order any particular voter sees is random. Apparently it's easy enough to implement and it really does help make elections fairer.

Nope. T-Mobile is not modifying content, they're throttling a specific class of content and relying on your platform to provide a stream that fits into the 1.5Mbps allotment. Every legitimate document and article discussing the offering makes this very clear. That is to say, my sources include T-Mobile itself (though I can't find the link at the moment), the EFF, the report we're actually discussing here (see page 18 and the table on page 19, HTTPS is allowed, but requires further intervention by T-Mobile for participation), and a whole slew of other legitimate internet commentary.

More to the point, the worst thing that can possibly happen to a non-participating provider who uses HTTPS or a protocol that makes it impossible for T-Mobile to determine that the data is a video stream is... nothing. T-Mobile can't determine that the data is a video stream and, so, does not throttle it. Simple as pie. (as an aside, this explains why I'm able to stream 1080p from YouTube with Binge-On enabled, so I'm glad I actually read the full report and learned something new and interesting; you should, perhaps, try it)

If you have a source for your information, identify and link to it; otherwise, kindly stop spreading FUD, your UID is low enough that you should know better.

Donald Knuth's old, little known book 'Surreal numbers' is quite good. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!

You'd have a point if there was any substance to the article, but there isn't. There's a quote in the article, repeated in large, bold letters, which sums up what they're saying:

...

You aren't being Cassandra. You're being the descendant of the lone nutjob who ran around in the 70s screaming that nobody should implement TCP and everyone should stick with incompatible protcols because he thought nothing good could could possibly come from a universal standard.

The article was crap. True.

I was speaking generally. I did not finish RTFA.

It just seemed an appropriate occasion to ask the question (based on the summary) – a general question. Not about net security, but about being a prescient person in general. Managers, politicians, and the general public ignore real innovations or warnings, and disregard the visionary types. They then later blame the engineers/programmers/scientists for not having 'done something sooner'.

Prime example: Douglas Engelbart of SRC International. He and his team created the computer mouse, hypertext, and bit-mapped screen displays. In 1968, these and more were displayed at the 'Mother of All Demos'. Management had little to no interest in such useless things (LOL), so it wasn't until about 20 years later that someone named Steve was given a demo — He promptly asked to license the technology (much of which was not patented, due to management's blinders).

It looks like nobody has connected a PLC *directly* to the Internet in a nuclear plant yet, but they've connected control networks (those containing the industrial control systems and the computers that manage them) to non-control-related office networks resulting a number of incidents, both malicious and unintentional. See PDF page 14:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/s...

This is also worth a read:

http://large.stanford.edu/cour...

Congradulations, KlomDark, you are officially old. Welcome to the club. Now you, too, can watch in horror and dismay as everyone you love dies, leaving you feeling abandoned in a world full of strangers, just like the rest of us have been doing.

Incidentally, there is hope.

Whole-sale prices are lower in Germany than in California. Customer prices in Germany are twice as high. But is a myth that this is caused primarily by renewables. The feed-in tariff for renewables is only 20% of the cost and this would be lower if parts of the industry weren't exempt (and exempt industry pays much less than in California). For background information, see: https://law.stanford.edu/publi...

That carbon emission weren't reduced much is mostly because gas has been reduced while coal is not. This has something to do with the relative cost of gas and coal (which is different in Europe than the US which has cheap gas). Also Germany produced 647,1 GWh last year while net-exporting 50,1 GWh (both records). So other countries reduced emissions by buying electricity from Germany.

There are two problems with solar: night and clouds. There is one problem with wind: it's not always windy. Wind installations are typically combined with natural gas burners to supplement electricity when it's not windy enough.
Nuclear is the only power source that can handle a huge load constantly without interruption. That is why Hansen supports it, because if you want to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere without messing up our lifestyles, it's the only way with current technology.

The article cites this paper, which claims to have found a way to handle electricity generation from wind/water/solar while dealing with the interruptions. It assumes by 2050 all residential and commercial heating will have thermal storage, like this community in Alaska. It is up to you to decide if that is a reasonable or practical assumption.

Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use.

How in the world could you consider this fair use?

The three top items on "opposing fair use" are
*Commercial activity
*Profiting from the use
*Entertainment

https://copyright.columbia.edu...

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov...

Oh really?

Maybe you just don't want it to be true. But science is moving along, with or without you.

If you want to start playing with some deep learning models, I would highly recommend this page. It provides some basic examples that run right in your browser. Also, this page provides a great guide to working with neural networks without getting bogged down in a bunch of mathematical equations.

Another great resource is Caffe. Caffe is a deep learning framework that will let you define a wide variety of neural networks by just writing a text file. You can run Caffe applications in CPU or GPU mode (a lot of open source deep learning code will only work with GPUs, so being able to run things either way is a nice feature).

If you want to do computer vision, make sure that you read up on fully convolutional neural networks, because they are the big thing right now.

Remember that story about a program that was able to learn how to play just about any Atari game? That is called reinforcement learning, and that's a big thing right now too. Udacity has a great course on reinforcement learning.

I might recommend the following along with the associated free textbook: https://lagunita.stanford.edu/... Textbook: http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth... Afterwards you can look at the more advanced free textbook: http://statweb.stanford.edu/~t...

I might recommend the following along with the associated free textbook: https://lagunita.stanford.edu/... Textbook: http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth... Afterwards you can look at the more advanced free textbook: http://statweb.stanford.edu/~t...

UnknownSoldier wrote:

By that logic: * The Big Bang Theory is not Science, * hell, most of Astrophysics is not science either ... If we tossed out every scientific philosophy simply because we didn't have a way to (yet) test it, Science would remain an incredible narrow domain. Science is supposed to be about Truth. Once we start artificially limiting how the Truth is arrived at you have a cult / dogma.

Yeah, you've got it: there is no Definition of Science that doesn't exclude a bunch of stuff that certainly seems like science. And no, Virginia, Popper's falsification is not accepted by actual scientists as the fundamental principle of science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikipedia.

In the case of String Theory we've got a bunch of smart folks working very hard at making inferences pushing the limits of what's known and what's knowable. If it was easy to do experiments to settle these issues, then they'd have been done already and the frontier would be somewhere else. It doesn't follow that no one is ever going to come up with relevent experimental data, and scientific theories don't actually come with expiration dates, like, "must be verified by Christmas".

Arguably these guys were working on a quickie experiment to settle an aspect of string theory (though I expect someone to jump in with a dogmatic definition of string theory that excludes the theory that the universe has a distributed information character to it in the same manner as a hologram).

Even if it responds intelligibly, and what it says makes complete sense, is that the same as understanding?

Good job poorly rehashing an argument made in 1980

which has been refuted time and again.

I'm not really sure it's academia's fault, but more that the entertainment industry got a bit carried away with stories about future AI, and now people think that if it doesn't look like that, then it's not AI, all the while missing the massive advances in computing that AI research has netted them...

Where did the "entertainment industry" get these ideas from? From AI researchers in the 1950s, that's where!

In 1950, you had Turing declaring that by the year 2000, we'd have computers so fluent in natural language that you could debate appropriate word substitutions in Shakespearean sonnets with them in complex metaphors. Today we have chatbots that claim to "pass the Turing test" by pretending to be a non-responsive teenager who doesn't really know English that well.

In 1956, you had the Dartmouth Conference declaring that they thought most of the major problems of AI (like natural language processing, abstraction of concepts, creativity, etc.) could probably be solved in a couple of months with 10 dudes thinking hard.

That kind of optimism lasted for a couple decades at least in the AI academic world, and it's not surprising at all that pop culture listened to those academics.

I'm not at all denigrating the significant advancements which have been made. But my "goalposts" for "real" AI have not been moved since Turing's original test was declared 65 years ago, which Turing thought would be possible to pass with flying colors 15 years ago.

But we have hardware and software many orders of magnitude larger and more complex than Turing dreamed of, but we haven't made significant dents in many of those Dartmouth Conference goals.

You can't blame this on the "entertainment industry." The early AI guys were overly ambitious and thought the problems were much more easy to solve than they seem to be.

So, despite that "particulate emissions from petrol cars are so low that they are not routinely measured" and can "emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer" the fact that petrol cars may release twice as much particulate means that they've suddenly caught up?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Twice "barely measureable" makes "less barely measureable" and even in the worst case that means that diesel emits 12 to 200 times more. That's "a much higher level" by my reckoning. No-one's saying petrol is saintly.

With the most modern DPFs this would probably not be an issue - or at least not as much an issue as it is now - but we don't live in an ideal world. And the current state of play is that diesel is implicated in having (if not proven to have) measurable health effects in dense urban environments which is a specific use-case. Anecdotally, the rise of diesel is making buildings grimier than they have been since the smogs of London and Paris were beaten into submission. London cannot control car policy nationwide so it has to broad brush like this but the real solution would be refusing to grant MoT approval for diesels without adequate DPFs.
That's not the point I was responding to, though. I was pointing out that it's not some vast conspiracy, it has to do with the either perceived or real health impacts of lots of diesel in a small area.

Look at the guy who thinks that punishing every fraternity for a crime at one fraternity that never even happened is more important than the truth.

Look at the guy who is using a single anecdotal example of a false accusation to call into question the existence of the rape epidemic or that action should be taken to combat it. (According to the FBI, 2% of rape reports are found to be false -- the same percentage as other types of felonies.

In the many-worlds interpretation of QM, also called "QM without collapse", becoming more and more mainstream, this is a straightforward consequence of entanglement. When you measure the spin or polarization of your entangled particle, you become entangled with it, so in a sense all you're doing is discovering which "universe" you're in. And of course that universe is correlated with the corresponding other particle, no matter where it is now.

Also, thickening of the ice doesn't slow global warming. Only growing ice extent can do that, by reducing albedo.

Which brings up the question of whether urban heat islands could be mitigated somewhat by switching from black asphalt and tar surfaces to painting the streets and roofs white?

Or, better yet, paint it with something like the new nanotech pigment that reflects (rather than absorbing and/or down-shifting) 97% of the incident light and only strongly couples to the "infrared window" where the atmosphere is transparent, "seeing" only the sun and the near-absolite-zero sky, not the infrafred from the greenhouse gasses and clouds. This results in a surface that, in full sunlight, is about 9 degrees F cooler that the surrounding air (and produce still more cooling when the sun is down).

Nine degrees F is about how much heating they're touting as a disaster, isn't it? Maybe we should paint whole continents. B-)

(Meanwhile, reducing the amount of energy used for air conditioning by deploying trick paint could cut a lot of fossil fuel use without degrading quality of life.)