No. It's elitism when these guys have the power to greatly influence elections, decide when footage is something we "shouldn't see" (someone else mentioned the Hussein hanging), or otherwise decide which information they want the public to know or the perceptions they should have. There's a difference between doing a good job and abusing your pulpit.
I don't think that's elitism, I think that's abuse of position (which you come to at the end of the paragraph).
The trouble with unedited user-generated content is that it's data, not information. Without a context it's probably worse than biased reporting. After all, who's going to be in a position to produce the best (ie, most persuasive) "user [fnord] generated" content? Those with the biggest PR budgets, that's who. In this vision of news generation we lose even the tiny bit of accountability that we have at the moment.
Is the idea that a trained professional can do a better job than an amateur "elitism"? Do you think air traffic control should be done by trained experts or do you think that anybody with an internet connection should be able to grab a chunk of airspace and control the aircraft in it? Yes, there's a difference between safety-of-life applications and journalism, but it seems to me to be a difference of degree, not of principle. If nothing else, the employed professional can be fired (and maybe held to account by a professional body) if they screw up. Who holds the supplier of user-generated content to account?
Read Knuth on that one -- he points out cases where people have done similar things and ended up with particularly/poor/ generators. Even if you did end up with a good generator, how would you know you had?
True, but if you roll one yourself, the P in PRNG no longer has a second meaning of 'predictable.' It does if you don't do it right, and you're unlikely to do it right unless you're a cryptographic expert. Just because your algorithm isn't published doesn't mean a competent codebreaker won't be able to crack it: ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurityrel=url2html-8229http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity>.
If you're working at the level where a friend has to explain the weaknesses in a PRNG class, one you roll yourself is highly unlikely to be better. There are many algorithms out there that have been very thoroughly analysed and explored by experts, and there's going to be one out there that's easy to find and better than your hand-rolled one. And, of course, what count as "weaknesses" depends on the application. A PRNG that's great for Monte-Carlo simulation may be too predictable for cryptography. A PRNG that's sufficiently hard to predict for cryptography may be too slow for Monte-Carlo simulation.
The diameter is the major axis (somebody has already quoted the definition, in terms of maximum distance between parallel tangents), so in the degenerate case where the minor axis is 0 the circumference is twice the diameter (there and back again). As the minor axis increases it increases until it equals pi when the major and minor axes are equal. If that axis continues to increase it becomes the major axis, so the ratio starts falling again.
roundadj1 shaped like, or approximately like, a circle or ball. 2 not angular, with a curved outline (Chambers 21st Century Dictionary)
So, according to definition 2, an ellipse is round, for example. And depending on the eccenticity, the ratio of circumference to diameter (major axis) of an ellipse can be anywhere between 2 and pi: 3, maybe?
Sounds like it's an issue with a loophole in CDA 230. After reading it over I notice CDA 230 has exemptions for federal crimes, and copyright infringement. Sounds like the problem could be solved by adding another exemption for Libel such that the ISP must take down libelous statements when ordered to do so by the court otherwise their held responsible for them, much the same as the other exceptions. The trouble with that is that at the moment genuine whistleblowers have some potential protection from identification. Take it away and bullies will find it all the easier to silence criticism -- all they have to do is call the accusations libel then they can go after the whistleblower with their own threats of violence. I've been in that position -- my wife was blowing the whistle on malpractice in a geriatric care home, and we got threats of violence against our (then) infant children (on police advice she shut up and left the job). You might say that to get the court to order the release of the information the complainant would have to demonstrate a strong case for libel, but without the whistleblower there to put their side of the case and to actually show evidence that could be all too easy. Anonymity is important, and it's when libel accusations start flying around that the interests of both sides need to be very carefully weighed.
in my experience, engineers, if anything, tend to be anti-religious, socially liberal types who constantly look for rational, provable solutions to the world's problems. Yep, that's a terrorist mindset all right. You're not supposed to look for solutions, you're supposed to just accept without question the supposed solutions that those in power supply.
"I'll be home the same time as yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. I wish! No, on second thoughts, I don't. I like the unpredictability.
You must have better soundproofing on your cubes than I did when I worked in one (actually, we had eight to a cube, so soundproofing between cubes was pretty much irrelevant). The ears are rather poor at direction-sensing on the top-heavy tones produced by tiny mobile-phone speakers (it's an even bigger issue for those high-pitched "beep beep beep" alarms used on so many systems: "Is it a reactor meltdown, or is it my wristwatch alarm for my lunch engagement?").
You know what else is work appropriate? A ringing tone. So everybody in the open plan office stops work to answer the phone when yours rings. Great plan.
Or even just vibration. So that's where you keep your phone! No wonder it takes 20 seconds to get it out.
Why do so many people seem to have to phone someone just to shout "Hi. I'm on the train...yes the train....now Its leaving the station.... bye". Because it gives their SO at home an idea of how long they'll be, so they know when to put the food on.
And then on the intercity trips there is always someone next to you that obviously uses his phone for business but has that really loud ringtone of Abba singing "Waterloo". He always puts his phone back in his pocket after each call and then takes 20 seconds to get it out again when he's called two minutes later. Because:
a. Abba's "Waterloo" is more work appropriate than, say, Johnny Paycheck doing "Take this job and shove it" or Rage Against the Machine's "Killing (In the Name Of)".
b. If they leave it out, someone will grab it and jump off the train when it gets to the station.
Next?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in my 50s too, and it's perfectly comprehensible. The MS marketing department is hooked on [adult swim].
0.1 in 10?
I don't think that's elitism, I think that's abuse of position (which you come to at the end of the paragraph).
The trouble with unedited user-generated content is that it's data, not information. Without a context it's probably worse than biased reporting. After all, who's going to be in a position to produce the best (ie, most persuasive) "user [fnord] generated" content? Those with the biggest PR budgets, that's who. In this vision of news generation we lose even the tiny bit of accountability that we have at the moment.
Is the idea that a trained professional can do a better job than an amateur "elitism"? Do you think air traffic control should be done by trained experts or do you think that anybody with an internet connection should be able to grab a chunk of airspace and control the aircraft in it? Yes, there's a difference between safety-of-life applications and journalism, but it seems to me to be a difference of degree, not of principle. If nothing else, the employed professional can be fired (and maybe held to account by a professional body) if they screw up. Who holds the supplier of user-generated content to account?
Read Knuth on that one -- he points out cases where people have done similar things and ended up with particularly /poor/ generators. Even if you did end up with a good generator, how would you know you had?
It does if you don't do it right, and you're unlikely to do it right unless you're a cryptographic expert. Just because your algorithm isn't published doesn't mean a competent codebreaker won't be able to crack it: ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurityrel=url2html-8229http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity>.
If you're working at the level where a friend has to explain the weaknesses in a PRNG class, one you roll yourself is highly unlikely to be better. There are many algorithms out there that have been very thoroughly analysed and explored by experts, and there's going to be one out there that's easy to find and better than your hand-rolled one. And, of course, what count as "weaknesses" depends on the application. A PRNG that's great for Monte-Carlo simulation may be too predictable for cryptography. A PRNG that's sufficiently hard to predict for cryptography may be too slow for Monte-Carlo simulation.
You (or the RIAA) have been watching Ben Elton's "We Will Rock You" (or listening to Rush's "2112").
Because computers are a standard piece of recording studio equipment?
The only good reference would be a Hebrew dictionary.
The diameter is the major axis (somebody has already quoted the definition, in terms of maximum distance between parallel tangents), so in the degenerate case where the minor axis is 0 the circumference is twice the diameter (there and back again). As the minor axis increases it increases until it equals pi when the major and minor axes are equal. If that axis continues to increase it becomes the major axis, so the ratio starts falling again.
round adj 1 shaped like, or approximately like, a circle or ball. 2 not angular, with a curved outline (Chambers 21st Century Dictionary)
So, according to definition 2, an ellipse is round, for example. And depending on the eccenticity, the ratio of circumference to diameter (major axis) of an ellipse can be anywhere between 2 and pi: 3, maybe?
"Round" doesn't (necessarily) mean the same as "circular". Anybody up on the original Hebrew? (As if it matters).
And where does it say it was circular?
If you write the division backwards, it's an obvious pattern: 113\355.
There certainly is. But since when has threatening to rape somebody been libel?
Maybe they're learning what the latest Crappy McPop artist sounds like?
Use the VGA port on the side, then you can upgrade to any size monitor you like.
Funny how nobody is owning up to having Johnny Paycheck as their ringtone. Presumably slashdotters prefer the DAC original...
You must have better soundproofing on your cubes than I did when I worked in one (actually, we had eight to a cube, so soundproofing between cubes was pretty much irrelevant). The ears are rather poor at direction-sensing on the top-heavy tones produced by tiny mobile-phone speakers (it's an even bigger issue for those high-pitched "beep beep beep" alarms used on so many systems: "Is it a reactor meltdown, or is it my wristwatch alarm for my lunch engagement?").
a. Abba's "Waterloo" is more work appropriate than, say, Johnny Paycheck doing "Take this job and shove it" or Rage Against the Machine's "Killing (In the Name Of)".
b. If they leave it out, someone will grab it and jump off the train when it gets to the station.
Next?