What about monsters that occasionally drop a rare item? What if those monsters occur as part of paid downloadable content? What if the monster is not that hard to kill?
So they've charged them with various crimes, and a jury may or may not convict them. But the trial hasn't happened yet - what right does the government have to take down their website and business just in case they get a conviction? Isn't the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" that you get your day in court before any punishment happens?
I'd like a language that is almost purely functional. Think about how much of programming is spent designing data structures for efficient lookup of intermediate results. If computers were infinitely fast, you would just compute everything from scratch based on the original input.
For a graphics engine, this would mean taking the art as the artists originally created it and doing all the processing needed to display it, every frame.
For a web browser, you would re-render starting with the HTML every frame, simply discarding what isn't in the window.
AI would become easier: For a given problem, iterate through all topologies of neural network up to some constant size, train each one, and see which is the smallest that produces the 100% correct results on the training data set. That's likely to be the correct generalization of the problem.
If the summary is correct, to make a single barrel of oil you must process 34B*365/30M=413,666 gallons of sewage? Hard to imagine this being remotely cost effective.
Most of the people in Austin are in favor of Uber and Lyft operating there, right? So I would think that it would be extremely difficult to convict anyone of these "crimes" in a jury trial. Even if the trial were held in a municipal court in Texas, that requires 6 people to all give a "guilty" verdict; if less than half agree with the law then that's less than 1/64 chance of conviction. (And if held in a district court, less than 1/4096 chance of conviction!)
Correct, there's a problem with the system. This system fixes it by charging non-refundable royalties when placing an order, and by awarding those royalties to traders that do leave market orders in place until they execute.
The big innovation here is adding wood pulp to an already zero-calorie food?? Konjac ("Devil's Tongue Yam") flour has zero calories and noodles made from it already taste good. You can find them in any asian market sold as "Shirataki Noodles" or in a solid block form called Konnyaku. They are traditionally part of Sukiyaki, and are available online from konjacfoods.com and miraclenoodle.com.
There's a fascinating essay, written by Stu Reges, who was at one time Chief Reader for the AP Test in Computer Science, and later National Director of the Libertarian party. In the essay, copied below, he speculates on why so many programmers are libertarian. My spin on this is that for many things our brains exhibit two-way causality: When you're happy you tend to smile. But smiling out of the blue also causes a feeling of happiness. Will learning to think like a programmer cause people to start thinking about society the way a libertarian does?
I'd be curious to know, among Slashdot readers, whether the essay below rings true. Are you a programmer? A libertarian?
------------------
Libertarian IQ
I'm finally making good on my promise to post my "wild speculations" about Computer Science IQ and Libertarian inclination.
First let me give some background on CS IQ. I have taught at least 5,000 students how to program, which has given me a strong set of hunches about what goes on in their heads. But the most useful source of information came from my work as Chief Reader for the Advanced Placement Exam in Computer Science.
AP programs allow high school students to take college-level courses at their high schools and take a test that allows them to receive placement and usually credit for their work. As with all AP exams, the AP/CS Exam is divided into two parts: multiple-choice and free-response. In the free-response section, students hand-write solutions to problems. This has always been considered an integral part of the AP program because of the (at least perceived) limitations of multiple-choice tests. The AP/CS exam had 50 multiple-choice and 5 free-response questions. The free-response questions were all of the form, “Write a piece of code that does the following"
Obviously, the hand-written solutions need to be graded by real people. Every year about 60 CS teachers (called “readers") get together for 6 days to grade 10,000 exams. As Chief Reader, I was responsible for choosing the 60 teachers, managing their efforts for those 6 days, and setting the ultimate distribution of AP grades. In 1988 I made AP history by giving the all-time worst set of AP grades ever given out (I failed almost half of them). As a result, ETS approved a request they had never approved before. They gave me a diskette (actually 2) with the raw scores for all 10,000 candidates so that I could “study" it. My undergraduate degree is in math with a statistics specialization, so I’m the kind of person who likes to play with data.
One of the things I looked at was the set of correlations between various multiple-choice questions A high correlation between 2 test items indicates that candidates performed similarly on those items (i.e., those who got one right tended to get the other right and those who got one wrong tended to get the other wrong). I expected to find either virtually no correlations, because there was little repetition on the test, or clusters of correlations. If you were to test people on math, for example, you might find that arithmetic questions correlated highly with arithmetic questions, algebra questions correlated highly with algebra questions, geometry questions with geometry questions, and so on. I expected a similar pattern based on various programming constructs/skills.
What I found was highly puzzling. Five multiple-choice questions were each correlated with over a dozen other questions and I found virtually no other correlations at all. But there was no pattern to the correlations for these five. Let me describe the grandaddy as an example. One had more correlations than any other and I nicknamed it the “grandaddy." It was highly correlated with 25 other questions, yet the topic that it tested had nothing to do with the topics covered by these other questions.
When I looked at correlations between multiple-choice and free-response, I became even more puzzled. There was definitely repetition between the two halves of the
Clearly "what the people want" isn't working here. So why don't they simply sell the cars direct there anyway and disregard the law? Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars. It would seem near-impossible to get a unanimous verdict to convict, as is required in Virginia.
Because Range Voting is more expressive than Condorcet methods. Suppose I am very satisfied with either of two Libertarian candidates, but would say "hell, no!" to Hillary Clinton. Merely voting "Paul > Johnson > Clinton" does not adequately express that. In fact with a Condorcet method, a more rational vote would be "Paul > Johnson > Hitler > Clinton" (knowing that nobody else will vote for Hitler.)
Also, Range Votes are usually normalized so that each voter has equal influence.
Let's say that domestic spying is your #1 concern - who do you vote for?
If I were unilaterally pick who becomes the next president I'd pick Ron Paul, because I believe he would put a quick end to domestic spying (and because I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian.) However, the rational thing to do is to select from whichever of the (D,R) candidates I believe is infinitesimally least bad, because it is certain that one of them will win.
If we used Range Voting instead of plurality voting then the rational decision would be to cast an honest vote. In my case in the last election it would be something like Hillary=0%, Obama=10%, Romney=15%, GaryJohnson=85%, RonPaul=100%. Range voting not only allows you to express all of your desires, but does away with the need for political parties/primaries.
I'm going to make a purely libertarian argument that in this case, murder-for-hire was justified:
Libertarianism is the belief that one should never initiate force or fraud. So given that:
1. If Fred is a robber and points a gun at Bob's Family, then Bob is justified in killing Fred.
2. If Dave witnesses the above scene, then Dave is justified in killing Fred, because Fred is the one that initiated force.
3. If Fred credibly threatens to kill Bob's Family in the future, and the only way to prevent that is for Dave to kill Fred, then Dave is justified in killing Fred.
4. If Fred's credible threat is not to kill Bob's family, but to kidnap them, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred.
5. If Fred's credible threat is to hire Gino to do the kidnapping, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred. Dave is also justified in killing Gino, because now Gino is also initiating force.
In the case of the Silk Road trial, "Dave" is DPR/Ross Ulbricht, Gino is the government, Fred is Frieldlychemist, and Bob's Family are the peaceful dealers and customers of Silk Road.
I would love one. I would actually pay as much as $100/month for a fully ad-free web experience (and I realize that most adds are not Google ads.) But $3/month is a no-brainer.
Hope this includes YouTube.
If elections are publicly financed, then how does a candidate without name recognition bootstrap?
And if the answer is "everyone gets equal financial support," then what prevents 1000 candidates from running?
Yeah, how much? I'd bet my time is worth far more than the ad revenue they get from me. For instance, Super Bowl ads this year averaged $4M/minute to reach an audience of 111M viewers. So that's $4.34/hour/viewer. For the Super Bowl.
So let's assume the cat-video-watching audience is worth more than the Super Bowl watching audience. For my $2/month subscription I'd be able to skip 25 minutes of solid ads. Again, no-brainer, at least for me.
Slashdot Mirror
What about monsters that occasionally drop a rare item? What if those monsters occur as part of paid downloadable content? What if the monster is not that hard to kill?
So they've charged them with various crimes, and a jury may or may not convict them. But the trial hasn't happened yet - what right does the government have to take down their website and business just in case they get a conviction? Isn't the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" that you get your day in court before any punishment happens?
I take this to mean that Google will release their own cryptocurrency in about 6 months.
For a graphics engine, this would mean taking the art as the artists originally created it and doing all the processing needed to display it, every frame.
For a web browser, you would re-render starting with the HTML every frame, simply discarding what isn't in the window.
AI would become easier: For a given problem, iterate through all topologies of neural network up to some constant size, train each one, and see which is the smallest that produces the 100% correct results on the training data set. That's likely to be the correct generalization of the problem.
How do you pronounce it? "OL-tuh-BAH?" "AL-TAB-uh?"
...then as a good atheist-Jew, I will certainly register.
If the summary is correct, to make a single barrel of oil you must process 34B*365/30M=413,666 gallons of sewage? Hard to imagine this being remotely cost effective.
Most of the people in Austin are in favor of Uber and Lyft operating there, right? So I would think that it would be extremely difficult to convict anyone of these "crimes" in a jury trial. Even if the trial were held in a municipal court in Texas, that requires 6 people to all give a "guilty" verdict; if less than half agree with the law then that's less than 1/64 chance of conviction. (And if held in a district court, less than 1/4096 chance of conviction!)
Correct, there's a problem with the system. This system fixes it by charging non-refundable royalties when placing an order, and by awarding those royalties to traders that do leave market orders in place until they execute.
A 2x2 board has more than 3^4 possible games, not legal positions. The same legal position may occur in multiple games.
The big innovation here is adding wood pulp to an already zero-calorie food?? Konjac ("Devil's Tongue Yam") flour has zero calories and noodles made from it already taste good. You can find them in any asian market sold as "Shirataki Noodles" or in a solid block form called Konnyaku. They are traditionally part of Sukiyaki, and are available online from konjacfoods.com and miraclenoodle.com.
I think I would intentionally pee on a wall (at an angle of course) just to see how well this stuff works.
I'd be curious to know, among Slashdot readers, whether the essay below rings true. Are you a programmer? A libertarian?
------------------
Libertarian IQ
I'm finally making good on my promise to post my "wild speculations" about Computer Science IQ and Libertarian inclination.
First let me give some background on CS IQ. I have taught at least 5,000 students how to program, which has given me a strong set of hunches about what goes on in their heads. But the most useful source of information came from my work as Chief Reader for the Advanced Placement Exam in Computer Science.
AP programs allow high school students to take college-level courses at their high schools and take a test that allows them to receive placement and usually credit for their work. As with all AP exams, the AP/CS Exam is divided into two parts: multiple-choice and free-response. In the free-response section, students hand-write solutions to problems. This has always been considered an integral part of the AP program because of the (at least perceived) limitations of multiple-choice tests. The AP/CS exam had 50 multiple-choice and 5 free-response questions. The free-response questions were all of the form, “Write a piece of code that does the following"
Obviously, the hand-written solutions need to be graded by real people. Every year about 60 CS teachers (called “readers") get together for 6 days to grade 10,000 exams. As Chief Reader, I was responsible for choosing the 60 teachers, managing their efforts for those 6 days, and setting the ultimate distribution of AP grades. In 1988 I made AP history by giving the all-time worst set of AP grades ever given out (I failed almost half of them). As a result, ETS approved a request they had never approved before. They gave me a diskette (actually 2) with the raw scores for all 10,000 candidates so that I could “study" it. My undergraduate degree is in math with a statistics specialization, so I’m the kind of person who likes to play with data.
One of the things I looked at was the set of correlations between various multiple-choice questions A high correlation between 2 test items indicates that candidates performed similarly on those items (i.e., those who got one right tended to get the other right and those who got one wrong tended to get the other wrong). I expected to find either virtually no correlations, because there was little repetition on the test, or clusters of correlations. If you were to test people on math, for example, you might find that arithmetic questions correlated highly with arithmetic questions, algebra questions correlated highly with algebra questions, geometry questions with geometry questions, and so on. I expected a similar pattern based on various programming constructs/skills.
What I found was highly puzzling. Five multiple-choice questions were each correlated with over a dozen other questions and I found virtually no other correlations at all. But there was no pattern to the correlations for these five. Let me describe the grandaddy as an example. One had more correlations than any other and I nicknamed it the “grandaddy." It was highly correlated with 25 other questions, yet the topic that it tested had nothing to do with the topics covered by these other questions.
When I looked at correlations between multiple-choice and free-response, I became even more puzzled. There was definitely repetition between the two halves of the
Or use the A New Kind of Justice litigation system where the defendant would welcome being the target of a nuisance lawsuit.
There is! One of these would be great exercise.
Clearly "what the people want" isn't working here. So why don't they simply sell the cars direct there anyway and disregard the law? Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars. It would seem near-impossible to get a unanimous verdict to convict, as is required in Virginia.
Because Range Voting is more expressive than Condorcet methods. Suppose I am very satisfied with either of two Libertarian candidates, but would say "hell, no!" to Hillary Clinton. Merely voting "Paul > Johnson > Clinton" does not adequately express that. In fact with a Condorcet method, a more rational vote would be "Paul > Johnson > Hitler > Clinton" (knowing that nobody else will vote for Hitler.)
Also, Range Votes are usually normalized so that each voter has equal influence.
Ron Paul had the balls to vote "no" on the patriot act, both in 2001 and 2005. Did you vote for him? (Or, would you have?)
Let's say that domestic spying is your #1 concern - who do you vote for?
If I were unilaterally pick who becomes the next president I'd pick Ron Paul, because I believe he would put a quick end to domestic spying (and because I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian.) However, the rational thing to do is to select from whichever of the (D,R) candidates I believe is infinitesimally least bad, because it is certain that one of them will win.
If we used Range Voting instead of plurality voting then the rational decision would be to cast an honest vote. In my case in the last election it would be something like Hillary=0%, Obama=10%, Romney=15%, GaryJohnson=85%, RonPaul=100%. Range voting not only allows you to express all of your desires, but does away with the need for political parties/primaries.
But in our current system - vote for who?
I'm going to make a purely libertarian argument that in this case, murder-for-hire was justified:
Libertarianism is the belief that one should never initiate force or fraud. So given that:
1. If Fred is a robber and points a gun at Bob's Family, then Bob is justified in killing Fred.
2. If Dave witnesses the above scene, then Dave is justified in killing Fred, because Fred is the one that initiated force.
3. If Fred credibly threatens to kill Bob's Family in the future, and the only way to prevent that is for Dave to kill Fred, then Dave is justified in killing Fred.
4. If Fred's credible threat is not to kill Bob's family, but to kidnap them, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred.
5. If Fred's credible threat is to hire Gino to do the kidnapping, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred. Dave is also justified in killing Gino, because now Gino is also initiating force.
In the case of the Silk Road trial, "Dave" is DPR/Ross Ulbricht, Gino is the government, Fred is Frieldlychemist, and Bob's Family are the peaceful dealers and customers of Silk Road.
I would love one. I would actually pay as much as $100/month for a fully ad-free web experience (and I realize that most adds are not Google ads.) But $3/month is a no-brainer. Hope this includes YouTube.
If elections are publicly financed, then how does a candidate without name recognition bootstrap? And if the answer is "everyone gets equal financial support," then what prevents 1000 candidates from running?
int NeedsDrink(void) { return(1); }
Yeah, how much? I'd bet my time is worth far more than the ad revenue they get from me. For instance, Super Bowl ads this year averaged $4M/minute to reach an audience of 111M viewers. So that's $4.34/hour/viewer. For the Super Bowl. So let's assume the cat-video-watching audience is worth more than the Super Bowl watching audience. For my $2/month subscription I'd be able to skip 25 minutes of solid ads. Again, no-brainer, at least for me.
I'd definitely pay $2/month to remove the damn ads. Same goes for Hulu - why don't they have this option?