Sleep deprivation treats depression, or at least sort of. It lasts less than a day, and the rebound is hell. One's concentration is shot due to the sleep deprivation anyway, so productivity gains are limited, and add to that the effects of needing to catch-up on sleep. However, it does seem to temporarily improve mood for some people.
In the US, from what I've seen, Hershey uses more real chocolate than Nestle, though they're starting to phase in vegetable oil-based crap too. This isn't out of benevolence, it's because they care slightly more about their image; Hershey tried to get `chocolate' redefined to include the adulterated crap a few years ago and failed.
The United States' definition of chocolate is currently, compared to others in the world, fairly stringent. Just make sure your chocolate says ``chocolate" on the packaging, and not some bullshit like ``chocolatey candy," and be thankful that Hershey's plan to sabotage the language failed.
As for UK chocolate, we'll have to disagree. I've tried a lot of imported UK chocolate, and it's mostly the same crap as here, at least if you leave the vegetable oil-based ones out of consideration. They taste different, but I wouldn't call one of them definitively `better,' though I really like the Raisin & Biscuit Yorkies, but that's mostly for the crunchy cookie bits.
One reason I've heard that American milk chocolate tastes different is that Hershey's, back in the day when they were good, used cultured milk instead of a preservative, making it a little more tangy/bitter. Their competitors copied them, and it just became a standard flavor over time.
Chocolate is slightly harmed by long-term refrigeration; I've kept chocolate, tightly sealed, in the fridge for about a month, to no ill effect. Candy bars are usually eaten pretty quickly. The benefit of refrigeration is that it changes the texture of the caramel and nougat.
btw, there are dark chocolate KitKats in the US, at least in the miniatures. It's still not good chocolate, but it really doesn't need to be. They're miles beyond the normal ones.
Spilled drain cleaner is typically cleaned up quickly, and if touched does damage but usually not too much. A few stray magnet balls can sit there until some toddler chomps them. Are you really calling a two-year-old "stupid crotch fruit" for that? And it doesn't have to be the toddler's house, or his parents who were responsible for losing them.
Look, on the one hand it's incredibly rare that this will happen, and I get that, and it's a reasonable argument, but that's not what you're saying. What do you do when it's statistically likely that a product will cause harm to someone not involved in the negligence?
I was out once, vaping my e-cig, when the unit failed (not my fault, the seal was defective) and spilled a significant amount of nicotine fluid. I got some napkins and cleaned it up well, mostly because if I didn't, it would have been fairly easy for some random toddler to overdose himself on nicotine. It was a sobering moment, really. I know it's incredibly unlikely, but what if I hadn't cleaned it up, and that had happened? Would you hurl insults at the toddler, or me, or the e-cig manufacturer? To be consistent with what you posted, it seems that you'd yell at the poisoned toddler.
There's a difference between liability for oneself, and liability for likely harm to others, and it's worth drawing the distinction even if you conclude in some cases that it's not worth exercising.
I've heard, but never timed it myself, that perl is faster for regexp-type stuff than even the specialized tools, just from the massive amount of optimization it has accrued over the years; here is a completely unbiased source. Use a perl or python script, and consider using Storable (perl) or pickle (python) to serialize the data structure, I guess, but just having the whole list in memory will help.
According to this, perl regexps are (unsurprisingly) a superset of egrep's.
I don't see how introducing SQL could do much to help speed, or anything else, in this application.
Tell us, misleadingly, how the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to travel, and then sleazily recast this into the context of coercion of private corporations. You've done it a hundred times before, so get to it.
Yes, if that article is accurate and this one isn't, I agree that it would support the hypothesis that NSA seriously screwed up the very thing they helped create.
Personally, my suspicion is that part of the NSA is extremely smart and competent but they work on isolated cases, coming up with exploits for espionage, reverse-engineering software, and so on. However, the ``spy on everyone just because we can"-part of the NSA attracts power-hungry goons of mediocre ability.
I am assuming nothing. I admit I was unclear on one thing: the access control scheme of SELinux could be implemented in anything, and the NSA designed a large part of it. I just meant, NSA developed access controls, so it's at least plausible that they were using them internally, on linux or whatever else.
I am only saying that it is possible that the journalist was accurate, though i find it unlikely. Everyone else seems to be assuming that the journalist is full of shit and that the NSA is stupid. The former is quite reasonable, but the latter is indeed a dangerous assumption to make.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, if you read it with the unspoken truth that education is primarily a system of indoctrination, there is no contradiction at all. ``He is a brilliant person who was not subjected to our training, thus dangerous."
Didn't the NSA contribute significantly to SELinux, the entire point of which was to enforce access controls so that root wouldn't be omniscient?
Either they weren't using it internally (which would be a bit odd, but not surprising), or they were using it improperly (which is extremely likely), or it was implemented correctly and Snowden was actually very clever (which is somewhat unlikely).
At first, I thought you were a bit out of line, and it would be easy to include graphs which look meaningful but illuminate nothing, and we should give these researchers some credit for avoiding obvious pitfalls. Then I looked closer.
All they do is mention that one variable looks pretty much normally-distributed, and don't mention anything about outliers, etc. The effect of stress is radically different (having no effect) for the regression for bullying among children with ADD than it is for all others, without any apparent reason. At least they tested for collinearity.
Even taking their results for granted, the p-values for the effect the article claims (that video game violence modulates the effect of aggressiveness on bullying and delinquency) are, across their groups, 0.53, 0.82, 0.7, and 0.03. At best, the effect was detected only in one regression of four, however even that could be by chance. Aggregating these together as independent experiments under a combined null hypothesis gives a combined significance of ~0.11, which is not very impressive (i.e. the 0.03 could have happened just by chance of doing four separate regressions); performing the same meta-analysis with Fisher's method gives 0.31.
Oh, and that regression where stress was mysteriously insignificant? Yup, it's the same and only one which got the 0.03 significance level. Interesting.
I'm using the modern definition; doing that helps cut down on confusion, no?
Note: I don't have a problem with non-sciences; I enjoy and am fairly good at computer "science," but I can say the same about Aristotelian philosophy. But neither one can hold a candle to, say, modern physics (which I also enjoy).
I just don't have much patience for glorified coders sneering at psychology and linguistics as if they're somehow better.
That's interesting, but since all it does is make a linear congruence PRNG more efficient, how can you say it's underused? If people needed the efficiency, they would use their PRNG; if they have 50MB (not a whole lot in most cases) to spare, they don't need the extra complexity.
My question was whether there has been a practical, fundamental attack on PRNGs which wasn't dependent on exploiting an implementation bug. AFAIK, linear congruence PRNGs have not (yet?) been proven NP-hard, but they work in practice.
Coffee beans don't turn rancid for a long while, it's more that the volatile oils will evaporate, losing flavor. Keeping them in the fridge is actually terrible because of the moisture. Use the freezer if you must or, preferably, grind small amounts and use it quickly.
Has there yet been an actual attack on a high-quality prng (which didn't rely on implementation bugs)?
All I know is that there are several theoretical prngs where predicting the output sequence is NP-hard under the usual crypto assumptions, but I don't know if they are used in practice.
Just for the record, that's due to a protein rather than a carbohydrate, and the problem is not indigestibility but rather that the protein is actively toxic.
Slashdot Mirror
Sleep deprivation treats depression, or at least sort of. It lasts less than a day, and the rebound is hell. One's concentration is shot due to the sleep deprivation anyway, so productivity gains are limited, and add to that the effects of needing to catch-up on sleep. However, it does seem to temporarily improve mood for some people.
In the US, from what I've seen, Hershey uses more real chocolate than Nestle, though they're starting to phase in vegetable oil-based crap too. This isn't out of benevolence, it's because they care slightly more about their image; Hershey tried to get `chocolate' redefined to include the adulterated crap a few years ago and failed.
The United States' definition of chocolate is currently, compared to others in the world, fairly stringent. Just make sure your chocolate says ``chocolate" on the packaging, and not some bullshit like ``chocolatey candy," and be thankful that Hershey's plan to sabotage the language failed.
As for UK chocolate, we'll have to disagree. I've tried a lot of imported UK chocolate, and it's mostly the same crap as here, at least if you leave the vegetable oil-based ones out of consideration. They taste different, but I wouldn't call one of them definitively `better,' though I really like the Raisin & Biscuit Yorkies, but that's mostly for the crunchy cookie bits.
One reason I've heard that American milk chocolate tastes different is that Hershey's, back in the day when they were good, used cultured milk instead of a preservative, making it a little more tangy/bitter. Their competitors copied them, and it just became a standard flavor over time.
Chocolate is slightly harmed by long-term refrigeration; I've kept chocolate, tightly sealed, in the fridge for about a month, to no ill effect. Candy bars are usually eaten pretty quickly. The benefit of refrigeration is that it changes the texture of the caramel and nougat.
btw, there are dark chocolate KitKats in the US, at least in the miniatures. It's still not good chocolate, but it really doesn't need to be. They're miles beyond the normal ones.
Spilled drain cleaner is typically cleaned up quickly, and if touched does damage but usually not too much. A few stray magnet balls can sit there until some toddler chomps them. Are you really calling a two-year-old "stupid crotch fruit" for that? And it doesn't have to be the toddler's house, or his parents who were responsible for losing them.
Look, on the one hand it's incredibly rare that this will happen, and I get that, and it's a reasonable argument, but that's not what you're saying. What do you do when it's statistically likely that a product will cause harm to someone not involved in the negligence?
I was out once, vaping my e-cig, when the unit failed (not my fault, the seal was defective) and spilled a significant amount of nicotine fluid. I got some napkins and cleaned it up well, mostly because if I didn't, it would have been fairly easy for some random toddler to overdose himself on nicotine. It was a sobering moment, really. I know it's incredibly unlikely, but what if I hadn't cleaned it up, and that had happened? Would you hurl insults at the toddler, or me, or the e-cig manufacturer? To be consistent with what you posted, it seems that you'd yell at the poisoned toddler.
There's a difference between liability for oneself, and liability for likely harm to others, and it's worth drawing the distinction even if you conclude in some cases that it's not worth exercising.
doing anything but repeated egreps is probably fast enough. he should do whatever is easiest, which probably isn't lisp.
I've heard, but never timed it myself, that perl is faster for regexp-type stuff than even the specialized tools, just from the massive amount of optimization it has accrued over the years; here is a completely unbiased source. Use a perl or python script, and consider using Storable (perl) or pickle (python) to serialize the data structure, I guess, but just having the whole list in memory will help.
According to this, perl regexps are (unsurprisingly) a superset of egrep's.
I don't see how introducing SQL could do much to help speed, or anything else, in this application.
Tell us, misleadingly, how the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to travel, and then sleazily recast this into the context of coercion of private corporations. You've done it a hundred times before, so get to it.
Yes, if that article is accurate and this one isn't, I agree that it would support the hypothesis that NSA seriously screwed up the very thing they helped create.
Personally, my suspicion is that part of the NSA is extremely smart and competent but they work on isolated cases, coming up with exploits for espionage, reverse-engineering software, and so on. However, the ``spy on everyone just because we can"-part of the NSA attracts power-hungry goons of mediocre ability.
Strictly speaking, `upshot' refers only to the ``final or eventual outcome or conclusion of a discussion, action, or series of events."
It does not mean that the outcome is positive; that's just an erroneous modern association with other `up'-words like `uplifting' and so on.
There is, for example, in the translation of Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel, an extended amoral dialogue about the `upshot' of raping a nun.
I am assuming nothing. I admit I was unclear on one thing: the access control scheme of SELinux could be implemented in anything, and the NSA designed a large part of it. I just meant, NSA developed access controls, so it's at least plausible that they were using them internally, on linux or whatever else.
I am only saying that it is possible that the journalist was accurate, though i find it unlikely. Everyone else seems to be assuming that the journalist is full of shit and that the NSA is stupid. The former is quite reasonable, but the latter is indeed a dangerous assumption to make.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, if you read it with the unspoken truth that education is primarily a system of indoctrination, there is no contradiction at all. ``He is a brilliant person who was not subjected to our training, thus dangerous."
Didn't the NSA contribute significantly to SELinux, the entire point of which was to enforce access controls so that root wouldn't be omniscient?
Either they weren't using it internally (which would be a bit odd, but not surprising), or they were using it improperly (which is extremely likely), or it was implemented correctly and Snowden was actually very clever (which is somewhat unlikely).
At first, I thought you were a bit out of line, and it would be easy to include graphs which look meaningful but illuminate nothing, and we should give these researchers some credit for avoiding obvious pitfalls. Then I looked closer.
All they do is mention that one variable looks pretty much normally-distributed, and don't mention anything about outliers, etc. The effect of stress is radically different (having no effect) for the regression for bullying among children with ADD than it is for all others, without any apparent reason. At least they tested for collinearity.
Even taking their results for granted, the p-values for the effect the article claims (that video game violence modulates the effect of aggressiveness on bullying and delinquency) are, across their groups, 0.53, 0.82, 0.7, and 0.03. At best, the effect was detected only in one regression of four, however even that could be by chance. Aggregating these together as independent experiments under a combined null hypothesis gives a combined significance of ~0.11, which is not very impressive (i.e. the 0.03 could have happened just by chance of doing four separate regressions); performing the same meta-analysis with Fisher's method gives 0.31.
Oh, and that regression where stress was mysteriously insignificant? Yup, it's the same and only one which got the 0.03 significance level. Interesting.
You're right, this is garbage.
For you to have a point, it would also be necessary to know engineers who thought the other way and have had a revolutionary idea.
So, any examples (of the revolutionary ideas of your colleagues, that is)?
well, once we are all insane, it would be easier to find an acceptable AI. unfortunately, it would also be harder to develop. :-/
And, by the way, you might note that I was replying to the person who brought up "pseudoscience."
I suspect that we are more in agreement than you might think.
I'm using the modern definition; doing that helps cut down on confusion, no?
Note: I don't have a problem with non-sciences; I enjoy and am fairly good at computer "science," but I can say the same about Aristotelian philosophy. But neither one can hold a candle to, say, modern physics (which I also enjoy).
I just don't have much patience for glorified coders sneering at psychology and linguistics as if they're somehow better.
Exactly.
That's interesting, but since all it does is make a linear congruence PRNG more efficient, how can you say it's underused? If people needed the efficiency, they would use their PRNG; if they have 50MB (not a whole lot in most cases) to spare, they don't need the extra complexity.
My question was whether there has been a practical, fundamental attack on PRNGs which wasn't dependent on exploiting an implementation bug. AFAIK, linear congruence PRNGs have not (yet?) been proven NP-hard, but they work in practice.
Uh, were you referring to CS or psychology?
Oh, it must have been psychology. Computer "science" isn't even a pseudoscience.
Great, so once we are all speaking lojban, AI will be a piece of cake, right?
Coffee beans don't turn rancid for a long while, it's more that the volatile oils will evaporate, losing flavor. Keeping them in the fridge is actually terrible because of the moisture. Use the freezer if you must or, preferably, grind small amounts and use it quickly.
Has there yet been an actual attack on a high-quality prng (which didn't rely on implementation bugs)?
All I know is that there are several theoretical prngs where predicting the output sequence is NP-hard under the usual crypto assumptions, but I don't know if they are used in practice.
Just for the record, that's due to a protein rather than a carbohydrate, and the problem is not indigestibility but rather that the protein is actively toxic.
Unfortunately, it might not be just the children of Microsoft employees... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/15/bill-gates-expands-influence-and-money-into-higher-education/