The proportion of rent-controlled units is 2%. Manhattan housing units have an occupancy rate of over 99%. Somehow I doubt removing rent-control will fix everything as you suggest.
And again, new apartments are not regulated. If there's money to be made, new apartments could be built (maybe not in a recession, but hey, that's because it's a recession).
And it's not like I want to pay less than the "actual" (LOL) cost of the apartment, you guilt-tripping randroid. I am happy to get anything at all. I just honestly don't think rent control has much to do with my difficulties.
I'm not even 30, and as far as I've kept track, I must have been through at least four of those bloody things. Let's see, just off the top of my head: Gorbachev's birthmark made him the 666; and I suppose that means he must have invented RFID too at some point; Iran was supposed to nuke the world sometime last year. Hmm, I know there've been more. Oh yeah, the formation of the European Union was supposed to be curtains for sure, but unless they plan to end the world through the phantom menace of trade regulations it's just not happening.
None of them have lived up to St. "Moldy Rye is Safe to Eat"-John's promises though; kind of anticlimactic. I'm getting jaded, and laser-planes just don't cut the mustard. I demand more! Let's genetically engineer some GIGANTIC SCARLET BULLS and put some whore-riders on 'em.
On the other hand, it was post-tsarist Russia. If they had instead turned to enlightened democratic capitalism, I'm sure there would still have managed to decimate themselves and hurt the world somehow.
Yeah, and after I put one or two (precious!) hours into correcting it, it'll likely be reverted by some pompous jackoff (some people are really religious about the Bayes=subjective thing) at which point I'll have the option of ditching my time, or getting into a protracted edit war. I'd rather spend the time writing a paper or running a simulation.
You know, some people don't have time to waste on amateur drama about scholarly topics. Imagine that!
Bullshit. Every rent-controlled lease/sublease I've looked at, was a lot cheaper than an uncontrolled apt. What am I missing here? Rent control can't possibly slow down new apt. development, since new apts are not rent controlled.
Note, I'm not saying that rent control is necessarily a good thing; I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be evidence that it hurts me (a poor by NYC standards person looking for an apartment).
That section is awful. It opens up by defining Bayesians as "subjectivists" and spews on about that a while, before finally (in the last paragraph!) saying that "the use of Bayesian probability involves specifying a prior probability...", which is the actual definition of Bayesianism!
At least they mention de Finetti, but for an antidote look at e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_Bayes, which is unfortunately at a much higher technical level than the bullshit section in Probability Interpretation. Oh well.
You need to make a distinction between outcomes of a process, and the process itself. Even if you can fully understand the shuffle by reviewing several gigabytes of video after-the-fact, doesn't mean that it was implemented deterministically. (On a similar note, a perfect deterministic understanding of that shuffle won't help you with the next shuffle... why is that?)
Similarly, suppose that we can perfectly observe radioactive decay in a recording. That's fine, but the atoms still decayed randomly...
A full deterministic solution to the "shuffling problem" would involve a state-space including perfect knowledge of the room-temperature; card material and age; the edge-profile of each individual card; shuffler's heart-rate and blood flow; &c., and I still don't think you could predict very well without going into even more absurd depths (e.g. a full particle model of the shuffler's hand). Now, if you did implement such a model, wouldn't it be reasonable to call the inevitable deviations from this model, as random deviations?
Sorry but, philosophy aside, it's just a whole lot more effective to think of it as a random process.
Yes, they model the imperfect interleave, and they assume that more cards will fall from the larger of the two stacks. The randomness comes, of course, from the fact that the number of cards which fall from each stack into each "leaf" is effectively non-deterministic and unobservable.
Your perfect observer would also argue that rolling a die is a deterministic process: he needs only to observe the force (acceleration) I apply to my hand/arm, and can in principle reconstruct the path of the die. However we assume that the observer can't do this, as long as I'm putting some effort into the shaking. [As a small semantic point, note that I could put up a screen and block your observer's view of my hand; by your definition, I have now made the die a "truly random" number generator even though I haven't really changed anything. We need to be careful saying things like "perfect observer" because there isn't really any such thing, just like there is no such thing as an unstoppable force, or impenetrable barrier.]
Regarding the seven shuffles thing, the result is rather robust to variation in the number of cards which drop. This is because the eigenstates of the deck-system, corresponding to unmixed-states, decay geometrically with respect to applying the shuffle operator. Intuitively, every time you apply a shuffle, it becomes less likely to see a given pre-existing pattern in the cards. Let's say it becomes x times as likely. If the shuffles are independent, then after seven it'll be approximately x^7 times as likely. You may object that you could shuffle back to the pre-existing pattern; the fact is, that probability is very small, and the theory does account for it.
Now, x^7 is going to be a pretty small number, whether x=0.5 or x=0.2 (but not if x=0.9). Establishing the upper bound on the relevant x is of course, part of the paper...
One of the most irritating things to me, is that more intelligent and capable people than myself not only believe in the sky-fairy, but also delude themselves into thinking that he is somehow a benevolent entity.
It just goes to show, intelligence and intellectual honesty are not the same thing.
Yeah. I grew up in Florida. Many Floridians are ex-New Yorkers, and the cops are no exception. Every cop with an opinion would tell you that the level of corruption (both in sheer quantity, and how institutionalized it is) in FL would put the New York mob and the teamsters to shame.
For example, after we got a new standardized educational testing system, it became popularly known that the governor (W's little brother "Jeb") had a connection to the company that would be supplying it. There was no outrage; rather we were happy to at least have a reason for it.
Yeah, but a sick person's coworkers will google it because people are idle sheep, and googling is a no-brainer way to assuage your worry with cheap info-trickle.
I mean, it's still useless - if you know whether it's winter, and whether any of your coworkers have flu, you can already do better than the almighty google. I think however, that it probably mostly does correlate with flu incidences.
Yes, of course it's obvious. But if it's a human doing the detection, charges of bias can (and would) come up. The dog gives it a veneer of objectivity, and much easier and cheaper than an ion mobility spectrometer.
As far as I know, it varies state-by-state. Some let you disclaim it, a few don't or have restrictions.
Which is not to say that a video game with online/subscription-bound content is necessarily defective, again as long as it is made clear before purchase.
Really I think this is the next generation of "feelies". Instead of a material fetish (look it up) to make you less likely to sell the game and its copy-protection, they're going the crass way. Whatever. People will either pay or not.
Although despicable, it's just as legitimate as our favorite license. If I may quote the GPL:
"EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM `AS IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
If the program doesn't come with some levels, or has them disabled, well that's just too bad as long as the implied warranty of merchantability is conspicuously disclaimed. My guess is that it won't be, and that there will be yet another class-action suit.
So you're saying that it would have been clearer if the sentence
"Wouldn't the sentence `I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"
had instead had quotation marks placed before the third mention of Fish, and between Fish and and and between and Fish, and and and and, and... oh fuck it.
And if anyone even dares bring up the average African-American IQ, it's plain to see that Obama's IQ is at least one or two sigmas above the average whitey.
Slashdot Mirror
The proportion of rent-controlled units is 2%. Manhattan housing units have an occupancy rate of over 99%. Somehow I doubt removing rent-control will fix everything as you suggest.
And again, new apartments are not regulated. If there's money to be made, new apartments could be built (maybe not in a recession, but hey, that's because it's a recession).
And it's not like I want to pay less than the "actual" (LOL) cost of the apartment, you guilt-tripping randroid. I am happy to get anything at all. I just honestly don't think rent control has much to do with my difficulties.
Oh Christ, not the end-times again?!
I'm not even 30, and as far as I've kept track, I must have been through at least four of those bloody things. Let's see, just off the top of my head: Gorbachev's birthmark made him the 666; and I suppose that means he must have invented RFID too at some point; Iran was supposed to nuke the world sometime last year. Hmm, I know there've been more. Oh yeah, the formation of the European Union was supposed to be curtains for sure, but unless they plan to end the world through the phantom menace of trade regulations it's just not happening.
None of them have lived up to St. "Moldy Rye is Safe to Eat"-John's promises though; kind of anticlimactic. I'm getting jaded, and laser-planes just don't cut the mustard. I demand more! Let's genetically engineer some GIGANTIC SCARLET BULLS and put some whore-riders on 'em.
On the other hand, it was post-tsarist Russia. If they had instead turned to enlightened democratic capitalism, I'm sure there would still have managed to decimate themselves and hurt the world somehow.
Yeah, and after I put one or two (precious!) hours into correcting it, it'll likely be reverted by some pompous jackoff (some people are really religious about the Bayes=subjective thing) at which point I'll have the option of ditching my time, or getting into a protracted edit war. I'd rather spend the time writing a paper or running a simulation.
You know, some people don't have time to waste on amateur drama about scholarly topics. Imagine that!
Bullshit. Every rent-controlled lease/sublease I've looked at, was a lot cheaper than an uncontrolled apt. What am I missing here? Rent control can't possibly slow down new apt. development, since new apts are not rent controlled.
Note, I'm not saying that rent control is necessarily a good thing; I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be evidence that it hurts me (a poor by NYC standards person looking for an apartment).
Bayesianism != subjective.
That section is awful. It opens up by defining Bayesians as "subjectivists" and spews on about that a while, before finally (in the last paragraph!) saying that "the use of Bayesian probability involves specifying a prior probability...", which is the actual definition of Bayesianism!
At least they mention de Finetti, but for an antidote look at e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_Bayes, which is unfortunately at a much higher technical level than the bullshit section in Probability Interpretation. Oh well.
But maybe the "blockage" occurred purely by chance, even though you did shuffle well. ;-)
That's the problem with randomness... you can never be sure: http://www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg
You need to make a distinction between outcomes of a process, and the process itself. Even if you can fully understand the shuffle by reviewing several gigabytes of video after-the-fact, doesn't mean that it was implemented deterministically. (On a similar note, a perfect deterministic understanding of that shuffle won't help you with the next shuffle... why is that?)
Similarly, suppose that we can perfectly observe radioactive decay in a recording. That's fine, but the atoms still decayed randomly...
A full deterministic solution to the "shuffling problem" would involve a state-space including perfect knowledge of the room-temperature; card material and age; the edge-profile of each individual card; shuffler's heart-rate and blood flow; &c., and I still don't think you could predict very well without going into even more absurd depths (e.g. a full particle model of the shuffler's hand). Now, if you did implement such a model, wouldn't it be reasonable to call the inevitable deviations from this model, as random deviations?
Sorry but, philosophy aside, it's just a whole lot more effective to think of it as a random process.
Yes, they model the imperfect interleave, and they assume that more cards will fall from the larger of the two stacks. The randomness comes, of course, from the fact that the number of cards which fall from each stack into each "leaf" is effectively non-deterministic and unobservable.
Your perfect observer would also argue that rolling a die is a deterministic process: he needs only to observe the force (acceleration) I apply to my hand/arm, and can in principle reconstruct the path of the die. However we assume that the observer can't do this, as long as I'm putting some effort into the shaking. [As a small semantic point, note that I could put up a screen and block your observer's view of my hand; by your definition, I have now made the die a "truly random" number generator even though I haven't really changed anything. We need to be careful saying things like "perfect observer" because there isn't really any such thing, just like there is no such thing as an unstoppable force, or impenetrable barrier.]
Regarding the seven shuffles thing, the result is rather robust to variation in the number of cards which drop. This is because the eigenstates of the deck-system, corresponding to unmixed-states, decay geometrically with respect to applying the shuffle operator. Intuitively, every time you apply a shuffle, it becomes less likely to see a given pre-existing pattern in the cards. Let's say it becomes x times as likely. If the shuffles are independent, then after seven it'll be approximately x^7 times as likely. You may object that you could shuffle back to the pre-existing pattern; the fact is, that probability is very small, and the theory does account for it.
Now, x^7 is going to be a pretty small number, whether x=0.5 or x=0.2 (but not if x=0.9). Establishing the upper bound on the relevant x is of course, part of the paper...
Are you sure? ;-)
One of the most irritating things to me, is that more intelligent and capable people than myself not only believe in the sky-fairy, but also delude themselves into thinking that he is somehow a benevolent entity.
It just goes to show, intelligence and intellectual honesty are not the same thing.
China and Russia. We're going to have to do something once our credit rating gets updated and our economic inertia burns out.
It's not getting any better.
Yeah. I grew up in Florida. Many Floridians are ex-New Yorkers, and the cops are no exception. Every cop with an opinion would tell you that the level of corruption (both in sheer quantity, and how institutionalized it is) in FL would put the New York mob and the teamsters to shame.
For example, after we got a new standardized educational testing system, it became popularly known that the governor (W's little brother "Jeb") had a connection to the company that would be supplying it. There was no outrage; rather we were happy to at least have a reason for it.
Huh? Then why do we have an office of government dedicated to it?
Yeah, but a sick person's coworkers will google it because people are idle sheep, and googling is a no-brainer way to assuage your worry with cheap info-trickle.
I mean, it's still useless - if you know whether it's winter, and whether any of your coworkers have flu, you can already do better than the almighty google. I think however, that it probably mostly does correlate with flu incidences.
Do you guys have an exemption for at least freely licenced stuff?
Yes, of course it's obvious. But if it's a human doing the detection, charges of bias can (and would) come up. The dog gives it a veneer of objectivity, and much easier and cheaper than an ion mobility spectrometer.
As far as I know, it varies state-by-state. Some let you disclaim it, a few don't or have restrictions.
Which is not to say that a video game with online/subscription-bound content is necessarily defective, again as long as it is made clear before purchase.
Really I think this is the next generation of "feelies". Instead of a material fetish (look it up) to make you less likely to sell the game and its copy-protection, they're going the crass way. Whatever. People will either pay or not.
Although despicable, it's just as legitimate as our favorite license. If I may quote the GPL:
"EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM `AS IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
If the program doesn't come with some levels, or has them disabled, well that's just too bad as long as the implied warranty of merchantability is conspicuously disclaimed. My guess is that it won't be, and that there will be yet another class-action suit.
So you're saying that it would have been clearer if the sentence
had instead had quotation marks placed before the third mention of Fish, and between Fish and and and between and Fish, and and and and, and... oh fuck it.
If everyone's kids had even the same chance of winding up dead, we'd probably be more hesitant.
And even if not (which is doubtful), as you say, it'll help with overpopulation.
Win-win imho.
I don't see how my voting has anything to do with this. I know several atheist and/or anti-Jesus republicans.
Not if it's being used as a (federal) polling place. At any other time, yes, they can say whatever they want.
You're not really big on subtlety, are you?
"Make sure you pray before your cast your vote."
That just can't be legal... Not that it matters. Still, that's even more disturbing than the rest of your story.
No it isn't. Being physically frail; senile and (allegedly) cancerous has a measurable effect on one's performance.
It's still kind of rude to bring up, especially now. Maybe thetoadwarrior is one of these people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbObFCadlqQ
And if anyone even dares bring up the average African-American IQ, it's plain to see that Obama's IQ is at least one or two sigmas above the average whitey.