Right -- it's not as if the number of cameras is independent of the previous clear-up rate.
Lots of gang activity => poor clear up rate due to fear of gangs. Lots of gang activity => lots of crime => high fear of crime => lots of cameras installed.
And what's the result - a positive correlation between CCTV and low clear up rates... and slashdot's libertarian whack job tendency screaming "CCTV doesn't work". Because, don't forget, if a correlation (or lack of correlation) supports your beliefs, then its as good as proof.
"One more such victory and we will be undone." This headline needs rewriting as "Man wins Pyrrhic Victory". $7500 worse off and he didn't even get an apology. Hell, if he'd actually been shoplifting he'd have got a smaller fine than that.
But "fortunately" screensavers remain unconfigurable.
Umm. No. From the FAQ:
Why doesn't the screensaver preferences tool allow me to change the settings for the theme?
We are trying to take a different approach. A gnome-screensaver theme is not directly equivalent to the xscreensaver concept of a "hack". Each gnome-screensaver theme is a combination of a "hack" (or theme engine) and a set of options. This is quite a different design. So, perhaps, a better question is how does one create a new theme for a pre-existing theme engine? For that please see the related section in this FAQ.
So if you want fast flying toaster, you can have fast flying toasters -- just configure a screensaver to run that hack with those options.
So you can configure screensavers however you like, but you can't reconfigure screensavers on the fly -- are you really holding that up as a serious usability issue?
Oh, I agree. Bankruptcy filings get written by the soon-to-be-outgoing board. Unsuprisingly, they rarely say "This company folded because the outgoing board is almost completely incompetent and abandoned its core business in order to give all the company's assets to its lawyers."
He was being a dick, and he was resisting the police rightfully removing him from an orderly public meeting. The right of free speech doesn't give you the right to shout everybody else down at a public meeting. A taser may be an over reaction, but really, they should've just had him walking spanish out of there.
But here's what I'd say to this child:
I know you believe in your cause, and I know you want to be heard. BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING. Do you think it helps Greg Palast if his most prominent supporters make the 9/11 Truthers look like rational human beings? Do you believe acting like a prick make people more or less sympathetic to your viewpoints? Does shouting make your arguments sound more or less cogent? Do you think picking a fight with police officers (because that is what you did) and then crying when then they forcibly remove you makes you Rosa Parks? Does disrupting a civilised debate with your simplistic and childlike "impeach Bush"isms make you seem like a friend or enemy of democracy?
Or are you just an attention whore?
And bear this is in mind: I'm on your side, politically [Well broadly; I'm nothing like as big a dick as you]. People closer to the middle ground are really going to think you're a kook.
So, I'm sorry you got tasered (though you brought it on yourself), but in the future, SHUT THE FUCK UP, BECAUSE YOUR EGOMANIACAL BEHAVIOUR IS DAMAGING THE CAUSES YOU BELIEVE IN.
Nobody's said otherwise. A bankruptcy filing is a statement of "here's why this company went under." And "we got outcompeted by X, Y and Z" is a pretty damn common reason.
You appreciate that the phrase "slippery slope" is an abbreviation of the phrase "slippery slope fallacy", right? And you know what a fallacy is? A line of reasoning that is not correct.
I didn't say public transportation would *always* be cheaper. But increasing parking fees increase the number of people for whom it *is* cheaper, thereby discouraging those people from driving. Which is what the GP couldn't seem to understand.
Athletic scholarships used to be exactly for that reason. And they really weren't a bad idea.
But long ago, college sports (OK, college football and basketball specifically) stopped being about attracting the scholastically able, and started being entirely about fundraising and boosting a college's reputation. It's now basically a competition to attract the best athletes, regardless of academic ability, and then hand-holding and babysitting them through the absolute minimum number of academically-worthless courses, to satisfy NCAA requirements.
Any self respecting college should be acutely embarassed to confer degrees on some "scholar-athletes", given their level of education at graduation. But they're not, because they helped win "The Big Game".
And -- even if that weren't the case -- if you're trying to attract under-privileged, college capable people, why not just give out more academic scholarships? Find the smartest kids who'd otherwise miss out. That should be the sole criteria for higher education -- how much will it benefit your mind?
The quoted numbers are a Javascript run test. I think you'll find NoScript speeds up running JS by... erm, not running it, except when you want it to. And since such a large %ge of Javascript is completely worthless, and possibly opens security holes, I think that's a triple win.
(Yes you can disable JS in Opera, but its considerably more coarse grained and less user friendly than NoScript).
The ones I have tried suffer from the problems related to the CFL condition. To sum it up -if c*dt/dx is not exactly equal to one, problems arise.
Ignoring the >1 case, which ain't ever going to work, I'd seriously doubt it is the CFL condition that's really causing it. What are your boundary conditions? For open boundaries, numerical solutions are not very tractable, as its very, very hard not to introduce spurious reflections at the boundaries unless you run the code in an effectively unbounded domain (bigger than wave speed*simulation time, which can be nigh impossible if you want scattering from a normal-sized body.) This is a serious win for asymptotics. I've solved elastic-wave problems with matched asymptotic expansions and later seen numerical simulations that got basically-the-same results at much, much greater expense.
It surprised me that something so nigh universal as the wave equation did not seem to have a reliable standard technique after over half a century of numerical analysis.
Don't be. Constant c is all well and good, but changing c opens a whole world of pain. This is a hard problem. Critical and turning layers --- yuck.
waste more time playing lucky dip with tedious textbook monographs.
That's a really disheartening statement. If you're considering making your living in this field, learning the basic theory is not a waste of time. If you find mathematics tedious, it's likely that numerical simulations are not for you.
Are you doing the time harmonic case (3-D Helmholtz) or an unsteady case? What does the domain look like (regular/rectangular and you may be able to use spectral methods)? In irregular domains, multigrid methods seem to converge most quickly for elliptic equations, but again, that depends on their exact form. You don't say what goes wrong with finite difference codes... For pure Adams-Bashforth schemes often give extremely good numerical stability. You talk about variable wave speeds, but the Mathworld equation you link to doesn't cover that. In many cases you can use multiple-scales/WKB approaches, but that depends on how the wave speed varies (relative to the wavelength).
Finally: there are many things for which Googling sucks. This is one. For an proper overview, try a proper textbook, like "Waves in Layered Media", mentioned above, or "Modern Methods in Analytical Acoustics" (Crighton, Dowling et al).
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation.
If you think adding this to Linux would do anything the code's original authors did not want to happen, you don't understand what "alternatively" means.
I'm not interested in revisionism. I've actually read the communist manifesto, and Marx's vision of communism had no room for democracy. That makes it totalitarian. Sorry.
I'm betting heavilly that we aren't going to see Venezuela becoming an economic powerhouse under Hugo Chavez. They might stay afloat economically, but that will be almost entirely thanks to oil and nothing else. It certainly won't propel them into having any sort of real, diversified economy in which the vast majority of the population gets out of poverty.
And how is this different from beacon-of-capitalism and friend-of-America, Saudi Arabia? Except that Chavez is elected and the House of Saud isn't?
Slashdot Mirror
I recommend the fork name "De-Pressed".
It seems to sum up this story.
Don't you understand?
Now it has A CATCHIER BUZZWORD-SOUNDING NAME!
World domination in 9...8...7...
So you're suggesting that your "Grandma" gives a flying fug as to what speed her screensaver toasters move at?
Right -- it's not as if the number of cameras is independent of the previous clear-up rate.
... and slashdot's libertarian whack job tendency screaming "CCTV doesn't work". Because, don't forget, if a correlation (or lack of correlation) supports your beliefs, then its as good as proof.
Lots of gang activity => poor clear up rate due to fear of gangs.
Lots of gang activity => lots of crime => high fear of crime => lots of cameras installed.
And what's the result - a positive correlation between CCTV and low clear up rates
"One more such victory and we will be undone."
This headline needs rewriting as "Man wins Pyrrhic Victory". $7500 worse off and he didn't even get an apology. Hell, if he'd actually been shoplifting he'd have got a smaller fine than that.
What definition of "configure" are you using?
So you can configure screensavers however you like, but you can't reconfigure screensavers on the fly -- are you really holding that up as a serious usability issue?
Oh, I agree. Bankruptcy filings get written by the soon-to-be-outgoing board. Unsuprisingly, they rarely say "This company folded because the outgoing board is almost completely incompetent and abandoned its core business in order to give all the company's assets to its lawyers."
Funny, that.
He was being a dick, and he was resisting the police rightfully removing him from an orderly public meeting. The right of free speech doesn't give you the right to shout everybody else down at a public meeting. A taser may be an over reaction, but really, they should've just had him walking spanish out of there.
But here's what I'd say to this child:
I know you believe in your cause, and I know you want to be heard. BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING.
Do you think it helps Greg Palast if his most prominent supporters make the 9/11 Truthers look like rational human beings?
Do you believe acting like a prick make people more or less sympathetic to your viewpoints?
Does shouting make your arguments sound more or less cogent?
Do you think picking a fight with police officers (because that is what you did) and then crying when then they forcibly remove you makes you Rosa Parks?
Does disrupting a civilised debate with your simplistic and childlike "impeach Bush"isms make you seem like a friend or enemy of democracy?
Or are you just an attention whore?
And bear this is in mind: I'm on your side, politically [Well broadly; I'm nothing like as big a dick as you]. People closer to the middle ground are really going to think you're a kook.
So, I'm sorry you got tasered (though you brought it on yourself), but in the future, SHUT THE FUCK UP, BECAUSE YOUR EGOMANIACAL BEHAVIOUR IS DAMAGING THE CAUSES YOU BELIEVE IN.
Nobody's said otherwise. A bankruptcy filing is a statement of "here's why this company went under." And "we got outcompeted by X, Y and Z" is a pretty damn common reason.
You appreciate that the phrase "slippery slope" is an abbreviation of the phrase "slippery slope fallacy", right? And you know what a fallacy is? A line of reasoning that is not correct.
Nah, this is just evidence of Castro trying to sabotage US capitalism again.
He's a crafty little bugger, you know.
The ham sandwich standardisation process was abandoned after repeated disagreements between the French and English over the definition of 'mustard'.
Athletic scholarships used to be exactly for that reason. And they really weren't a bad idea.
But long ago, college sports (OK, college football and basketball specifically) stopped being about attracting the scholastically able, and started being entirely about fundraising and boosting a college's reputation. It's now basically a competition to attract the best athletes, regardless of academic ability, and then hand-holding and babysitting them through the absolute minimum number of academically-worthless courses, to satisfy NCAA requirements.
Any self respecting college should be acutely embarassed to confer degrees on some "scholar-athletes", given their level of education at graduation. But they're not, because they helped win "The Big Game".
And -- even if that weren't the case -- if you're trying to attract under-privileged, college capable people, why not just give out more academic scholarships? Find the smartest kids who'd otherwise miss out. That should be the sole criteria for higher education -- how much will it benefit your mind?
The quoted numbers are a Javascript run test. I think you'll find NoScript speeds up running JS by ... erm, not running it, except when you want it to. And since such a large %ge of Javascript is completely worthless, and possibly opens security holes, I think that's a triple win.
(Yes you can disable JS in Opera, but its considerably more coarse grained and less user friendly than NoScript).
Are you doing the time harmonic case (3-D Helmholtz) or an unsteady case?
What does the domain look like (regular/rectangular and you may be able to use spectral methods)? In irregular domains, multigrid methods seem to converge most quickly for elliptic equations, but again, that depends on their exact form.
You don't say what goes wrong with finite difference codes... For pure Adams-Bashforth schemes often give extremely good numerical stability. You talk about variable wave speeds, but the Mathworld equation you link to doesn't cover that. In many cases you can use multiple-scales/WKB approaches, but that depends on how the wave speed varies (relative to the wavelength).
Finally: there are many things for which Googling sucks. This is one. For an proper overview, try a proper textbook, like "Waves in Layered Media", mentioned above, or "Modern Methods in Analytical Acoustics" (Crighton, Dowling et al).
That's pretty much how I feel about myself...
How about the Scarbrough Fair Scheduler, that allocates Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thymeslices.
Clue: it doesn't mean "as well as".
I'm not interested in revisionism. I've actually read the communist manifesto, and Marx's vision of communism had no room for democracy. That makes it totalitarian. Sorry.