I know that I am allowed to enslave empoverished women and sell them for sex in at least one state of this country called Nevada. I do not need those rights. Thank you. Enslavement refers to forced labor. Unlike the prostitutes you find in states where prostitution is illegal, Nevada prostitutes are not forced into their jobs by poverty or any other means: they freely choose it and freely keep what money they earn for themselves. It is actually a lucrative occupation, one that many of them even come to enjoy. See, I know it's natural for some people to think of women as passive helpless beings for them to take care of, but American women aren't quite so helpless. That's why they have the freedom and the courage to show their face in public, speak to and make eye contact with men outside their family, and even, should they choose to, become prostitutes. Then I take pleasure in bursting your balloon by this link.
Why would
print("astring" + "anotherstring" + "thirdstring");
be better than
cout << "astring" << "anotherstring" << "thirdstring";
? That's easy: the latter allows strings to be sent down the stream immediately, with no wait/need for concatenation.
That's all fine, notwithstanding one remark:
I always thought it would make more sense to use '$' = 'value of' and '@' = 'address of' for these. To be fair, "$" and "@" meant currency and apple pie back in that day:-) Actually, they're whirlpool (@) and big money ($)
Voight-Kampff was used to determine whether the subject was able to empathize with others. Interesting that the replicants were the ones who actually exhibited the quality (Leon and Rachael keeping photos of their "families", Batty breaking Deckard's fingers for killing Pris, even Deckard lying to Rachael that he was only joking about her being a replicant) while the humans in the movie seemed to lack it. Then again, I guess that was the whole point. In Alien: Resurrection, the most emphatic character turns out to be a robot, from some famous failed line of robots designed by robots. Not to mention Marvin from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, with his "genuine personality" thingie.
It is not any more right or wrong that modern theories. It simply is incomplete by the way we see things today.
I said that Newton's theory could be derived from relativity. Derived, but by which method? By the method of mathematical approximation,
which makes the Newton's theory an approximation of Einstein's. So then, in short,
yes, the Einstein's theory is "more right" than Newton's.
The problem with time travel is although it may be possible to travel in time it would not be a good idea. Let me explain, if have an actual time machine and travel back lets say 1 week you would materialize millions of miles away from earth in the middle of deep space. The reason for this becomes obvious when you realise earth is actually moving through space faster than a speeding bullet thus totally stuffing up the usefulness of traveling through time. You're conflating time-travel and teleportation. Let me explain: travel through time implies going into the past, which means that the object that travels is going straight where it was back in time, including everything else. You instead merely teleport the object to the position it had some time ago.
Newtonian physics nicely describes time-travel: here there is the absolute time, so when we do the travel we change all the clocks everywhere in the universe at once so it's really travel into the past, not to another location one had once before.
Mathematically, it works like this: in classical mechanics time is a parameter t that parametrizes the
whole system (let's say Solar system) in the sense that positions, velocities and forces are functions of t, so when you shift t, you really shift everything into the state it once had.
Newton's model had not been proved wrong. The Newton's theory is definitely wrong since it assumes the infinite speed of light where in
fact theory of relativity shows that the speed of light is finite.
It has only been proved incomplete. You can still demonstrate all of newton's work starting from relativity. Simply take the proper simplification: low speed, outside observer, etc. Theory of relativity is not some completion of the Newton's theory, it is a new theory altogether--that Newton's theory can be derived as an approximation in some limit does
not prove it correct, it just shows that it is a limit of some other theory.
Similar can be said of the general theory of relativity: it still may be
wrong in some important physical sense once the theory of quantum gravity is
developed.
...considering that the linked article is entitled " TV, film and game violence seen as a threat", and says things like:
Violence depicted on television, in films and video games raises the risk of aggressive behavior in adults and young viewers and poses a serious threat to public health, according to a new study.
True story: my boss and I were messing with the web cams on our spiffy SGI workstations very late one night. After maybe two or three minutes, there was a LOUD knock on the door. It was a guy from MIT Networking, from the other end of campus, complaining that the subnet mask on one of the machines was not set right. What did you expect? You DO NOT want to mess up your subnet mask at MIT. Their networking people are so good that if you do, they will remind you that you've messed it up basically only after a few minutes. Even if it's late at night.
[...]This is far from all we found about this one person, but having
made our point, we will spare the reader further lurid details. Also in the paper are one lemma, five theorems, a discussion thereof, a presentation and discussion of the the de-anonymizing algorithm, along with an interesting discussion of spareness within the original Netflix database (i.e. how similar are records from two different people). What I want is not some tight point, nor an arrow pointing to this point, but exactly the lurid details, (and preferably but not necessarily how they link to all these theorems and the algorithm.)
If you then submit 100 movie ratings to Netflix, assuming that it is PRIVATE information that will not be linked back to you, and then Netflix releases the data to the public, now the 100 movies can be correlated to you, and your name can be revealed. Researchers have shown how PRIVATE DATA released to the public can be linked to already public information. PROBLEM! What is the capital problem you are talking about? What does "PRIVATE DATA released to the public" mean? Are they private? PRIVATE? Public?
The researchers are making a stronger claim. They are stating that based on actual public ratings (available from IMDB) they can generate actual private ratings published by Netflix under the guise of anonymity. As the paper notes, someone competing for the Netflix prize could use this data to improve the accuracy of their prediction algorithm. However, the point of this paper is to reveal that public ratings can be used to identify purportedly anonymous private ratings. The researchers are making a stronger claim. They state:
As shown by our experiments with cross-correlating non-anonymous records from the Internet
Movie Database with anonymized Netflix records (see below), it is possible to learn sensitive non-public information about a person's political or even sexual preferences.
Exactly. Or, as one character in a comedy I've seen sometimes ago (I can't remember the title) is tripping all horrified in Amsterdam after eating some brownies, saying to his friend something like "I once watched gay porn,... I didn't know it... girls just never showed up,... they never showed up!!". He then jumps around the bar all in horror, a terrible trip he has, then the bar owner tells him something like: "come down white boy, there is no hash in those brownies".
That's not entirely true. You can rate movies you have not rented (maybe a friend has, or you saw them on TV or at the theater). That's not entirely true. You can rate movies you have not seen at all (maybe a friend has, or you saw their trailer, read about them, etc...)
Speaking about sexual preferences, "anal whores" and
"a pair of computer scientists from the University of Texas",
one of this pair, the first one from the signatures, has written a on his personal web site about the second:
Advisor: Vitaly Shmatikov <-- seriously awesome
From the article:
I'm fascinated by how U.S. teens build intricate models of which friends are available via mobile and which aren't. Teens know who is on what plan, who can be called after 7PM, who can be called after 9PM, who can receive texts, who is over their texting for the month, etc. Once one German dude told me that mobile phone changed his hanging-out habits such that he meets with friends depending on the mobile phone carrier/contract they have.
The next sentence of the article says:
It's part of their mental model of their social network and knowing this is a core exchange of friendship.
All but three made the cut explicitly for sexual content. I think we can assume GTA:SA and Fahrenheit made the list for the 'violence' as well, but that's a weak stretch at best... if they're there, why isn't Duke Nukem 3D? This pattern seems familiar--censoring for sex more than for violence.
I've written an assembler, for x86 no less. MOD/RM and SIB ain't got nothing on me. Oki-doki then. My favorite writing is a 6510 debugger/disassembler (for C64).
I think you'll see a lot more switching to Linux. Chalk up one more for Linux, one less for XP. Just got it converted, some P3 667Mhz, 3x128Mb, no floppy and CDROM that somehow mostly works.
Anyone who hasn't tried Linux is probably in for a shock when they do. They'll be kicking themselves for not trying it sooner. We'll see about this one on Monday.
Linux is good. Damn good. Truer words have never been spoken.
Well, this comment is tongue-in-cheek, but it does capture the essence of things. It's a lot of complicated group theory that describes symmetries of particles and forces. It was "only fully understood this year" if you believe TFA, which is why no one tried it yet. Want to know more? Go to grad school.;) But then who needs the grad school when the essence of things has been captured.
From a theoretical point of view, assembly knowledge isn't particularly useful because it doesn't lend itself to rigorous analysis (the "science" part of "computer science"). From a practical point of view, since very few programs are written in assembly language anymore, knowledge of it has limited utility. Further, from a practical point of view, I'd much rather deal with a programmer who can explain his work in terms of data structures and algorithms than one that is stuck thinking in terms of registers and memory locations. Then I gather you have not really programmed much, have you? Like in assembler, say 8-bit, or something similar? Just another pie-eater, ha?
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." - Abelson & Susman Well that's the beauty of assembler, it is written for both people to read and machines to execute, non-incidentally.
Slashdot Mirror
print("astring" + "anotherstring" + "thirdstring");
be better than
cout << "astring" << "anotherstring" << "thirdstring";
? That's easy: the latter allows strings to be sent down the stream immediately, with no wait/need for concatenation.
I said that Newton's theory could be derived from relativity. Derived, but by which method? By the method of mathematical approximation, which makes the Newton's theory an approximation of Einstein's. So then, in short, yes, the Einstein's theory is "more right" than Newton's.
Newtonian physics nicely describes time-travel: here there is the absolute time, so when we do the travel we change all the clocks everywhere in the universe at once so it's really travel into the past, not to another location one had once before.
Mathematically, it works like this: in classical mechanics time is a parameter t that parametrizes the whole system (let's say Solar system) in the sense that positions, velocities and forces are functions of t, so when you shift t, you really shift everything into the state it once had.
:D Yes, that's it!
Exactly. Or, as one character in a comedy I've seen sometimes ago (I can't remember the title) is tripping all horrified in Amsterdam after eating some brownies, saying to his friend something like "I once watched gay porn,... I didn't know it... girls just never showed up,... they never showed up!!". He then jumps around the bar all in horror, a terrible trip he has, then the bar owner tells him something like: "come down white boy, there is no hash in those brownies".
:D
The next sentence of the article says: It's part of their mental model of their social network and knowing this is a core exchange of friendship.
Easy fix:
$ clisp -q
[1]> (- 10.1d0 10 0.1d0)
-3.608224830031759d-16
[2]> (- 10.1d0 0.1d0 10)
0.0d0