Does unifi do seamless roaming? Because I don't think you can do that with most AP that you'll find. Most retail one do not support that.
I have been fighting with wifi at home and trying to get power set right, but even if you get a bit of connectivity from your AP, most wifi drivers won't switch to the AP with better power.
This is rated funny, but this is not funny. It is a problem and it needs to be solved.
All bias in society are a bad thing, and bias against males are important to solve as well. My understanding is that federal funding for this is available as well. Did anyone bother applying to get it?
While I am no huge fan on the public perception that AI will solve all the problems of the world. Recent developments in the field have been pretty impressive. Lots of things that were considered computationally impossible have become possible over the last 10 years thanks to developments in the field of AI. -We use to believe we were FAR away from a computer that can play go better than drunk amateur. Now it is really good thanks to alpha go. -We use to say that computers would not compose symphonies. But compositions by AIVA are not bad. Maybe not very inspired, but not bad. -We use to say computers would never make sense of images. But Google's tool to describe the content of images works fairly well. Sometimes it is hilariously wrong. But most of the time, it is pretty on point.
And the list goes on.
Is AI over hyped? Yeah probably. But I am glad people are digging into it because we need to know what the limit of these tools are. And I am glad federal money in going to fund that kind of research. And I say that knowing that I compete for federal research money myself, so all the money that goes to AI does not come to my field.
> That said, why people are drinking bottled water at all over what comes out of the tap, or just refilling those same bottles from... say... a 50l bottle of the same water... Isn't that what water-coolers were for?
Tap water in many region of the world is just bad. In the US, in the two cities I have lived so far, tap water is processed in a way that makes it taste awful. So, I understand why people are not drinking tap water. I filter mine and that seems to fix the taste problem. But boiling does not seem to improve the taste (coffee out of unfiltered tap water at my home is undrinkable for instance, while doing it from filtered water is fine).
So, while there are options other than purely bottled water, they make some sort of sense.
And that's before talking about regions where tap water is just not safe. We talked about Flint, Michigan a few years ago, but there are other regions that have just as bad water as that.
One professor would literally hand-wave "Those are implementation details."
But it depends what you teach. I teach computer science. And when I teach algorithms I could not care less how some of the bricks are implemented. I care about teaching correctness and complexity analysis. Your example on doubly linked list that trash the cache are a particularly good example. I don't even care that there are trashing the cache because they just change constant. And ignoring them enables me to get my students to focus on something more important in that class: Is it correct? What is the complexity?
Now when I teach High Performance Computing, I typically tell them that the only thing they should care about is the performance. And therefore the complexity may not be as relevant as before. There is even a very famous case in matrix multiplication that highlights that fact. Because constant definitely start to matter. But you need to care about different things at different point of the curriculum if you plan on driving the concept of the day through the students' brains.
I am not sure I agree with that perspective. Publishing is a mode of communication. It is not meant to be the Truth (TM). Publications are, at least nowadays in my opinion, a way of saying: "I have something worth sharing". Now that something you shared is more valuable if it comes with complete results, analysis, experimental settings, etc. But it does not have to have everything in there to be valuable.
I do not trust a research because I have all the data. I trust research when it makes sense, and I (or one of my student or colleague I trust) can reproduce it or come to a strong conviction. Because I can not trust raw results as they could be completely doctored.
Publishing papers is about communicating with your peers. Peer review before publication is about making sure nothing blatantly false is being presented which wastes everyones time. The real peer review starts after publication when armies of grad student start working on reproduction and comparison.
I publish Computer Science articles frequently. While I am not necessarily happy about how the peer review process works in my field, it often means something else than people expect.
In my opinion the review process verifies two things: Does the result seem correct? Is the paper interesting?
Whether the paper is "interesting" or not is a judgment call. In the context of a conference, I have asked to reject paper that were correct but I could not believe the problem and results would interest a room of 80 people for half an hour.
Whether the result is correct is a much more complicated question. If the paper is theoretical, you should be able to verify it during the peer review process. There are typically 3 reviewers, and that is usually enough to get a clear idea of whether the models and proofs are sound. If a part of the paper is still obscure to the 3 reviewers, then clearly the paper lacks clarity and should be revised before being accepted.
The real problem in CS comes from experimental papers. Because reproducing experimental results is hard and sometimes not possible. Maybe you don't have access to the code (research codes are not always made available). Maybe you don't have access to the data (some data is proprietary and can not be shared). Maybe you don't have access to the machine (I think only Chinese nationals can get access to tianhe-2 for instance; I myself wrote paper about an experimental not-yet-released system). Even if you could reproduce the result, it could take month to reproduce. So in practice, you don't attempt reproduction of most experimental CS paper. What you do is check for consistency. Does the result make sense? Does the technique provide an output that is coherent with expectation? If it doesn't, is the discrepancy explained in the paper? Is there a clear drawback to the method that is not mentioned in the paper? Do I believe that the paper contains all the information necessary for reproducing the results if I wanted to? That is about the type of things that you check. Some are pushing for including experimental results as supplementary material to experimental papers or to make experimental results more reproducible in general. (See the work of Arnaud Legrand or of Lucas Nussbaum for instance, but many other work on that.) The SC conference has now a reproducibility initiative to help with that.
The adversarial review that you are talking about happens AFTER publication. That is where the review peer review starts. It starts when dozens of master student or PhD student will compare their method to the state of the art. And that is when you will know what will stick and what won't. Because they will make the comparisons to different frameworks, on different machines, on different datasets.
I came to say something similar. The summary (haven't read the article of course, this is slashdot afterall) assumes that the world considers money based investments as a way of funding retirement. Not all the world agree with that model.
In France (for instance), retirement is mostly paid by taxation on the next generation. In many places, the community will take care of you. If my future well being is not based on market investment, why would I even need to understand it. This would be a purely academic skills.
Now, I am not arguing one model over the other one. I am just arguing that the article should really be entitled "the world does not understand how the American retirement system works". Which is not really surprising.
This is clearly not a long term solution, the oceans are warming and that is already causing concerns. Sticking a bunch of immersion heaters in the ocean is not exactly going to help.
Well. It is that, or run a bunch of AC systems to cool the machines down. This solutions saves about half the energy, so I say, it is still a win. (Albeit not the perfect solution.)
If you can train an existing DBA to be a data scientist quickly, then you don't really need a data scientist. Data science is about modeling complex phenomenon. It is about building statistical models, analyzing statistical significance, connecting pieces of an incomplete puzzle. It really has little in common with what a DBA usually does. Yes, they'll both write programs. Yes, they'll both use a bunch of data. Yes, they probably both took calculus II. But the commonalities stop here. A physicist, MD, algorithmician, or economist would probably be closer to being data scientists than a system oriented DBA.
well, the spirit is that it is moderately easy to remember one really complex password. That is the one you will use in the password database. Then all other sites will use randomly generated password stored in that database. So any leak in other services will not give them accesses to anything else than that particular service. Of course, if your password database gets compromised you are completely pawned. But it is easier to check the security of one place, rather than trusting the security of many places.
What is the alternative? You could remember 200 complex passwords; but I can't and most people can't. So they end up using very simple password which are different on each service, or they use a few complex password that they reuse everywhere. And that is a lot worse.
I don't quite understand why no one in the open source world has built a distributed youtube already. We have the perfect peer to peer technology to distribute the videos. Youtube comments is a feature no one really wants. The indexing bits looks a bit more complicated, but that is what DHTs are for. Recommendation, subscription can be built as an overlay service.
I am surprised we haven't seen that happen already.
The business model was really a bit more complicated than that. You could start pressuring some theater to give you a better price, or you won't send your traffic there. But it sounds almost impossible to pressure big chains, which is where the expenses are going to be.
One movie a day was a crazy for $10/month was a crazy deal on a model where movie pass pays full price for your ticket. Because then some people will use the theater as their tv and you'll end up with people who will cost you hundreds of ticket per year. And recouping your cost becomes a lot harder.
4 movies a month for $120 a year seems a lot more reasonable. You'd have to be really disciplined about going to the movies to get more than 30 in a year.
Not worth it for me, I spend about $200 in movie theaters a year and it is often with my wife and son. So unless we plan on going a lot more to the movies, it isn't going to be worth it for me.
Ranking 6th in the world in productivity per hour is not bad at all. In particular, that is much higher than japan, and south korea which are both first world country who work a lot more.
I am no expert, but there are public spaces where you can not take a picture. At border control and in the post office, there are sign that say that it is illegal to take pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
Does unifi do seamless roaming? Because I don't think you can do that with most AP that you'll find. Most retail one do not support that.
I have been fighting with wifi at home and trying to get power set right, but even if you get a bit of connectivity from your AP, most wifi drivers won't switch to the AP with better power.
This is rated funny, but this is not funny.
It is a problem and it needs to be solved.
All bias in society are a bad thing, and bias against males are important to solve as well. My understanding is that federal funding for this is available as well. Did anyone bother applying to get it?
While I am no huge fan on the public perception that AI will solve all the problems of the world. Recent developments in the field have been pretty impressive. Lots of things that were considered computationally impossible have become possible over the last 10 years thanks to developments in the field of AI.
-We use to believe we were FAR away from a computer that can play go better than drunk amateur. Now it is really good thanks to alpha go.
-We use to say that computers would not compose symphonies. But compositions by AIVA are not bad. Maybe not very inspired, but not bad.
-We use to say computers would never make sense of images. But Google's tool to describe the content of images works fairly well. Sometimes it is hilariously wrong. But most of the time, it is pretty on point.
And the list goes on.
Is AI over hyped? Yeah probably. But I am glad people are digging into it because we need to know what the limit of these tools are. And I am glad federal money in going to fund that kind of research. And I say that knowing that I compete for federal research money myself, so all the money that goes to AI does not come to my field.
> That said, why people are drinking bottled water at all over what comes out of the tap, or just refilling those same bottles from... say... a 50l bottle of the same water... Isn't that what water-coolers were for?
Tap water in many region of the world is just bad. In the US, in the two cities I have lived so far, tap water is processed in a way that makes it taste awful. So, I understand why people are not drinking tap water. I filter mine and that seems to fix the taste problem. But boiling does not seem to improve the taste (coffee out of unfiltered tap water at my home is undrinkable for instance, while doing it from filtered water is fine).
So, while there are options other than purely bottled water, they make some sort of sense.
And that's before talking about regions where tap water is just not safe. We talked about Flint, Michigan a few years ago, but there are other regions that have just as bad water as that.
One professor would literally hand-wave "Those are implementation details."
But it depends what you teach. I teach computer science. And when I teach algorithms I could not care less how some of the bricks are implemented. I care about teaching correctness and complexity analysis.
Your example on doubly linked list that trash the cache are a particularly good example. I don't even care that there are trashing the cache because they just change constant. And ignoring them enables me to get my students to focus on something more important in that class: Is it correct? What is the complexity?
Now when I teach High Performance Computing, I typically tell them that the only thing they should care about is the performance. And therefore the complexity may not be as relevant as before. There is even a very famous case in matrix multiplication that highlights that fact. Because constant definitely start to matter. But you need to care about different things at different point of the curriculum if you plan on driving the concept of the day through the students' brains.
I am not sure I agree with that perspective. Publishing is a mode of communication. It is not meant to be the Truth (TM). Publications are, at least nowadays in my opinion, a way of saying: "I have something worth sharing". Now that something you shared is more valuable if it comes with complete results, analysis, experimental settings, etc. But it does not have to have everything in there to be valuable.
I do not trust a research because I have all the data. I trust research when it makes sense, and I (or one of my student or colleague I trust) can reproduce it or come to a strong conviction. Because I can not trust raw results as they could be completely doctored.
Publishing papers is about communicating with your peers. Peer review before publication is about making sure nothing blatantly false is being presented which wastes everyones time. The real peer review starts after publication when armies of grad student start working on reproduction and comparison.
I publish Computer Science articles frequently. While I am not necessarily happy about how the peer review process works in my field, it often means something else than people expect.
In my opinion the review process verifies two things: Does the result seem correct? Is the paper interesting?
Whether the paper is "interesting" or not is a judgment call. In the context of a conference, I have asked to reject paper that were correct but I could not believe the problem and results would interest a room of 80 people for half an hour.
Whether the result is correct is a much more complicated question. If the paper is theoretical, you should be able to verify it during the peer review process. There are typically 3 reviewers, and that is usually enough to get a clear idea of whether the models and proofs are sound. If a part of the paper is still obscure to the 3 reviewers, then clearly the paper lacks clarity and should be revised before being accepted.
The real problem in CS comes from experimental papers. Because reproducing experimental results is hard and sometimes not possible. Maybe you don't have access to the code (research codes are not always made available). Maybe you don't have access to the data (some data is proprietary and can not be shared). Maybe you don't have access to the machine (I think only Chinese nationals can get access to tianhe-2 for instance; I myself wrote paper about an experimental not-yet-released system). Even if you could reproduce the result, it could take month to reproduce. So in practice, you don't attempt reproduction of most experimental CS paper.
What you do is check for consistency. Does the result make sense? Does the technique provide an output that is coherent with expectation? If it doesn't, is the discrepancy explained in the paper? Is there a clear drawback to the method that is not mentioned in the paper? Do I believe that the paper contains all the information necessary for reproducing the results if I wanted to? That is about the type of things that you check. Some are pushing for including experimental results as supplementary material to experimental papers or to make experimental results more reproducible in general. (See the work of Arnaud Legrand or of Lucas Nussbaum for instance, but many other work on that.) The SC conference has now a reproducibility initiative to help with that.
The adversarial review that you are talking about happens AFTER publication. That is where the review peer review starts. It starts when dozens of master student or PhD student will compare their method to the state of the art. And that is when you will know what will stick and what won't. Because they will make the comparisons to different frameworks, on different machines, on different datasets.
I came to say something similar.
The summary (haven't read the article of course, this is slashdot afterall) assumes that the world considers money based investments as a way of funding retirement. Not all the world agree with that model.
In France (for instance), retirement is mostly paid by taxation on the next generation. In many places, the community will take care of you. If my future well being is not based on market investment, why would I even need to understand it. This would be a purely academic skills.
Now, I am not arguing one model over the other one. I am just arguing that the article should really be entitled "the world does not understand how the American retirement system works". Which is not really surprising.
This is clearly not a long term solution, the oceans are warming and that is already causing concerns. Sticking a bunch of immersion heaters in the ocean is not exactly going to help.
Well. It is that, or run a bunch of AC systems to cool the machines down. This solutions saves about half the energy, so I say, it is still a win. (Albeit not the perfect solution.)
> Someone is gonna get Snes9X running on there, and use car controls to run Mario Kart. Autopilot, go!
Or do the reverse, use Mario Kart's AI to drive the car!
If you can train an existing DBA to be a data scientist quickly, then you don't really need a data scientist. Data science is about modeling complex phenomenon. It is about building statistical models, analyzing statistical significance, connecting pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
It really has little in common with what a DBA usually does. Yes, they'll both write programs. Yes, they'll both use a bunch of data. Yes, they probably both took calculus II. But the commonalities stop here.
A physicist, MD, algorithmician, or economist would probably be closer to being data scientists than a system oriented DBA.
well, the spirit is that it is moderately easy to remember one really complex password. That is the one you will use in the password database.
Then all other sites will use randomly generated password stored in that database. So any leak in other services will not give them accesses to anything else than that particular service.
Of course, if your password database gets compromised you are completely pawned. But it is easier to check the security of one place, rather than trusting the security of many places.
What is the alternative? You could remember 200 complex passwords; but I can't and most people can't. So they end up using very simple password which are different on each service, or they use a few complex password that they reuse everywhere. And that is a lot worse.
I am more interested in beeront.app
(e.g., try signing on as "user123 / pass123", then make sure "pass123" isn't actually in the log).
Hey! How did you know my password?!
I use pwsafe and I push the (encrypted) password file to git.
GitHub has sent an email to some of its 27 million users
Emphasis mine.
I don't quite understand why no one in the open source world has built a distributed youtube already.
We have the perfect peer to peer technology to distribute the videos.
Youtube comments is a feature no one really wants.
The indexing bits looks a bit more complicated, but that is what DHTs are for.
Recommendation, subscription can be built as an overlay service.
I am surprised we haven't seen that happen already.
Sure, but are there really 30 movies you -- hell, anyone -- would want to see every month? [...] Also most people are at work 5 days a week.
Enter teenager.
The business model was really a bit more complicated than that. You could start pressuring some theater to give you a better price, or you won't send your traffic there.
But it sounds almost impossible to pressure big chains, which is where the expenses are going to be.
One movie a day was a crazy for $10/month was a crazy deal on a model where movie pass pays full price for your ticket. Because then some people will use the theater as their tv and you'll end up with people who will cost you hundreds of ticket per year. And recouping your cost becomes a lot harder.
4 movies a month for $120 a year seems a lot more reasonable. You'd have to be really disciplined about going to the movies to get more than 30 in a year.
Not worth it for me, I spend about $200 in movie theaters a year and it is often with my wife and son. So unless we plan on going a lot more to the movies, it isn't going to be worth it for me.
Ranking 6th in the world in productivity per hour is not bad at all.
In particular, that is much higher than japan, and south korea which are both first world country who work a lot more.
So if your better half is pregnant, doesn't that make you semi-pregnant?
Not sure how that maps to semi-infinite though.
I am no expert, but there are public spaces where you can not take a picture. At border control and in the post office, there are sign that say that it is illegal to take pictures.
There is a whole planet to explore.
Put down the phone and look at the actual planet they are on.
If THAT bores you look up at night at the Universe.
Cool! Is there an app for that ?
you either need to re-evaluate your exposure or just cut your ethernet cable entirely....
My ethernet cable ? Jeez, this is the 21st century! I'll cut my WiFi cable, thank you very much!