if you think the kgb thug chest thumping by putin on small, weak georgia and ukraine is supposed to impress anyone other than propagandized neoserfs in a walled media garden inside russia. no
Well, it sure as hell impressed opportunistic American politicians who have been expanding NATO for 20 years without seemingly any sort of awareness of the provocation towards Russia it entailed, or seemingly any plan or ideas for how to handle an inevitable Russian response to said provocation. You think Germany is on the verge of annexing territory from Russia? Remind me, what's the most recent annexation in European history?
So, we mustn't heed Karl Marx's analysis of the problems of capitalism, because his proposed solution has never been successfully implemented? Does that also mean we should disregard Dr. Robert Gallo's discovery of the HIV virus, because it has not been cured yet?
3 sigma corresponds to 0.135%. It might not be enough for an official discovery, but if I were a betting man operating under the assumption that the results are wrong, I'd bet my money on the existence of some problems with the experimental design that create a signal by some incidental mechanism, and not on the chance that something with 0.135% probability of occurring has occurred.
You're the one who's very wrong, because you misunderstood the person you were replying to.
We already know the useful "laws" we use are just approximations, e.g. ohm's law, hooke's law, boyle's law, etc.
That's exactly what GP was saying. Modern physics does not pretend to be anything more than a series of useful approximate predictions. A hammer is neither right nor wrong, it is merely useful or not useful. Same goes for Newtonian mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, etc.
this does not fingerprint the browser, it fingerprints the user. it doesn't matter if you switch browsers, or even computers, your typing patters remain the same, and potentially identifiable.
Well, I for one never thought it was a scam, I just thought it was extremely likely to be another "faster than light neutrino" -- some missed detail in experimental design. I still think that's pretty likely, though decreasingly so.
That's done by MBAs who got it in their heads that the cute little homework problems they solved as students were an accurate representation of the real world. Apparently nobody ever told them that "all models are wrong."
Google could technically do the same for everyone on that spreadsheet. Sharing their own salary info would not be mentioned on the official papers as reason for termination, But their accessing/showing the spreadsheet could be grounds for termination upon suspicion of gaining unauthorized access to HR systems.
The problem is that judges aren't retarded, and if google fired a significant number of those people, they'd have an unwinnable class action suit on their hands before you can say "nine digit settlement".
That's the benefit of doing it en masse -- no plausible deniability on their part.
Public service announcement: "free speech" is a concept that exists outside the context of the US constitution. Here's some more thoughts on that, from reddit of all places (http://www.reddit.com/r/TiADiscussion/comments/2h53ov/the_irony_in_xkcds_free_speech_comic/):
You've all probably seen it before, but in case you haven't, here it is: http://xkcd.com/1357/
It's about free speech, and how some idiots think free speech means you can say whatever you want without any repercussions. Of course that's not true, as Randall points out, the first amendment just means that the government can't persecute you for simply having an opinion, people however are free to react to you however they want.
However I've noticed this comic being posted by people solely as justification for censorship or as a simple reply to a complaint about censorship. Instead of making an actual argument for censorship specific to the situation at hand they post this... but what does the comic say then? That the most compelling thing you can say for censoring is that it's not illegal to censor? Ironically this is a mirror image of what the title text of the comic says about defending your argument with free speech, only you're defending your censorship with the lack of free speech.
Picture this:
Person A censors Person B
B: "Freedom of speech! It's literally not illegal to say something so I should be able to say what I want without repercussions."
A: "XKCD comic! It's literally not illegal to censor you so I'm going to censor you."
And no one gives any legitimate arguments for justifying their actions or opinions.
reddit became as popular as it is in large part because it allowed everyone to talk about anything they wanted. And it confuses you why people might be angry that they are now not only changing that, but also taking their users for idiots by lying about what's really going on? Let me put it this way -- if you found out your girlfriend of 10 years has started fucking your rich neighbor, wouldn't you be a tad ticked off? Or would you be perfectly satisfied by someone telling you you can go find another girlfriend?
Overindulging precalculus audiences is how you end up with stupid shit like "why don't we define 0/0=0"... Talking about rings and fields might only confuse them, but at least they'll know that there's stuff they don't know (with apologies to Donald Rumsfeld).
That context does not exist in the expression "0*log0". You invent it. Can you tell me what it is inherently about 0*log0 that tells you it makes sense to imagine it as the limit of x*log(x), instead of, for example, as the limit of 0*sum_{n=1}^N (-1^n)/n? Setting aside the fact that it happens to give the same answer, as that is immaterial.
L'Hopital's rule allows one to evaluate x*log(x) as real x approaches zero from the positive side. The limit turns out to be zero even with slight modification of each term, (eg, replacing the product with (ax)*log(bx) still leaves the limit as zero).
Without context, that's an arbitrary choice of a limit, albeit an aesthetically pleasing one. Generally speaking there is no reason why 0log0=0 makes any more sense than 0/0=0. Either might make sense to use as convention for a specific problem, which again is a temporary local modification to notation.
well yeah, of course you could work around it if your system always defined x/0=0. in fact, if all your code is written correctly, and checks for division by zero before it ever happens instead of using built-in exception handling, then you shouldn't even notice how your system handles x/0. but the point is if you fuck it up, you at least want to know you fucked it up.
There is an identity rule for division: anything divided by one is itself (x/1 = x) but there is no rule that says x/x = 1
You can derive "rule two" from the identity rule for multiplication x*1 = x --> x/x = 1
Uh, that's not true. You can't derive existence of multiplicative inverse from existence of multiplicative unity, you have to assume existence of multiplicative inverse. For example, the ring of integers contains multiplicative unity, but does not contain multiplicative inverse. And there is no identity rule for division, there is just an identity rule for multiplication -- i.e., 1 is defined as the element that has x*1=x for all x.
Well, yes and no. It is often convenient to use the convention that 0/0=0, e.g., when computing local averages one does not have to go to the trouble to specify "if there are no points in the neighborhood, define the average as zero", so one uses this shorthand. Same goes for things like 0*log(0). But this is nothing more than a temporary local modification to notation.
Are you seriously not allowed to deny having had alien encounters..? I mean, if she'd asked you if you'd ever seen Genghis Khan flying around in a superman costume, could you at least have denied that?
I don't see where it says anything about the family being awarded a settlement. It does say the city is considering negligent homicide charges, specifically because the property is in disrepair and a nuisance, and I suppose if they did charge the owners and if they were convicted that would help the family win a civil suit, but anyway that has relatively little to do with copper theft, it's more more about the risk of owning a property that is in a dangerous state of disrepair.
Slashdot Mirror
if you think the kgb thug chest thumping by putin on small, weak georgia and ukraine is supposed to impress anyone other than propagandized neoserfs in a walled media garden inside russia. no
Well, it sure as hell impressed opportunistic American politicians who have been expanding NATO for 20 years without seemingly any sort of awareness of the provocation towards Russia it entailed, or seemingly any plan or ideas for how to handle an inevitable Russian response to said provocation. You think Germany is on the verge of annexing territory from Russia? Remind me, what's the most recent annexation in European history?
So, we mustn't heed Karl Marx's analysis of the problems of capitalism, because his proposed solution has never been successfully implemented? Does that also mean we should disregard Dr. Robert Gallo's discovery of the HIV virus, because it has not been cured yet?
3 sigma corresponds to 0.135%. It might not be enough for an official discovery, but if I were a betting man operating under the assumption that the results are wrong, I'd bet my money on the existence of some problems with the experimental design that create a signal by some incidental mechanism, and not on the chance that something with 0.135% probability of occurring has occurred.
We already know the useful "laws" we use are just approximations, e.g. ohm's law, hooke's law, boyle's law, etc.
That's exactly what GP was saying. Modern physics does not pretend to be anything more than a series of useful approximate predictions. A hammer is neither right nor wrong, it is merely useful or not useful. Same goes for Newtonian mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, etc.
this does not fingerprint the browser, it fingerprints the user. it doesn't matter if you switch browsers, or even computers, your typing patters remain the same, and potentially identifiable.
Well, I for one never thought it was a scam, I just thought it was extremely likely to be another "faster than light neutrino" -- some missed detail in experimental design. I still think that's pretty likely, though decreasingly so.
OK, so we've gone from all of them getting immediately fired to some of them maybe eventually not getting promoted. I guess that's hard to exclude.
That's done by MBAs who got it in their heads that the cute little homework problems they solved as students were an accurate representation of the real world. Apparently nobody ever told them that "all models are wrong."
Google could technically do the same for everyone on that spreadsheet. Sharing their own salary info would not be mentioned on the official papers as reason for termination, But their accessing/showing the spreadsheet could be grounds for termination upon suspicion of gaining unauthorized access to HR systems.
The problem is that judges aren't retarded, and if google fired a significant number of those people, they'd have an unwinnable class action suit on their hands before you can say "nine digit settlement".
That's the benefit of doing it en masse -- no plausible deniability on their part.
Good thing Grand Theft Auto didn't win any awards, otherwise we'd have millions of kids who became encouraged to kill hookers and blow up cop cars.
Yes, I know nothing about Young, which is probably why I didn't understand what you're getting at (still can't totally say I do, but whatevs).
That was so sarcastic and snide that I still can't figure out whether you were trying to diss him or defend him..
You've all probably seen it before, but in case you haven't, here it is: http://xkcd.com/1357/
It's about free speech, and how some idiots think free speech means you can say whatever you want without any repercussions. Of course that's not true, as Randall points out, the first amendment just means that the government can't persecute you for simply having an opinion, people however are free to react to you however they want.
However I've noticed this comic being posted by people solely as justification for censorship or as a simple reply to a complaint about censorship. Instead of making an actual argument for censorship specific to the situation at hand they post this... but what does the comic say then? That the most compelling thing you can say for censoring is that it's not illegal to censor? Ironically this is a mirror image of what the title text of the comic says about defending your argument with free speech, only you're defending your censorship with the lack of free speech.
Picture this:
Person A censors Person B
B: "Freedom of speech! It's literally not illegal to say something so I should be able to say what I want without repercussions."
A: "XKCD comic! It's literally not illegal to censor you so I'm going to censor you."
And no one gives any legitimate arguments for justifying their actions or opinions.
reddit became as popular as it is in large part because it allowed everyone to talk about anything they wanted. And it confuses you why people might be angry that they are now not only changing that, but also taking their users for idiots by lying about what's really going on? Let me put it this way -- if you found out your girlfriend of 10 years has started fucking your rich neighbor, wouldn't you be a tad ticked off? Or would you be perfectly satisfied by someone telling you you can go find another girlfriend?
What's sleazy and thieving about a mutually beneficial deal?
Overindulging precalculus audiences is how you end up with stupid shit like "why don't we define 0/0=0"... Talking about rings and fields might only confuse them, but at least they'll know that there's stuff they don't know (with apologies to Donald Rumsfeld).
That context does not exist in the expression "0*log0". You invent it. Can you tell me what it is inherently about 0*log0 that tells you it makes sense to imagine it as the limit of x*log(x), instead of, for example, as the limit of 0*sum_{n=1}^N (-1^n)/n? Setting aside the fact that it happens to give the same answer, as that is immaterial.
L'Hopital's rule allows one to evaluate x*log(x) as real x approaches zero from the positive side. The limit turns out to be zero even with slight modification of each term, (eg, replacing the product with (ax)*log(bx) still leaves the limit as zero).
Without context, that's an arbitrary choice of a limit, albeit an aesthetically pleasing one. Generally speaking there is no reason why 0log0=0 makes any more sense than 0/0=0. Either might make sense to use as convention for a specific problem, which again is a temporary local modification to notation.
well yeah, of course you could work around it if your system always defined x/0=0. in fact, if all your code is written correctly, and checks for division by zero before it ever happens instead of using built-in exception handling, then you shouldn't even notice how your system handles x/0. but the point is if you fuck it up, you at least want to know you fucked it up.
There is an identity rule for division: anything divided by one is itself (x/1 = x) but there is no rule that says x/x = 1 You can derive "rule two" from the identity rule for multiplication x*1 = x --> x/x = 1
Uh, that's not true. You can't derive existence of multiplicative inverse from existence of multiplicative unity, you have to assume existence of multiplicative inverse. For example, the ring of integers contains multiplicative unity, but does not contain multiplicative inverse. And there is no identity rule for division, there is just an identity rule for multiplication -- i.e., 1 is defined as the element that has x*1=x for all x.
Well, yes and no. It is often convenient to use the convention that 0/0=0, e.g., when computing local averages one does not have to go to the trouble to specify "if there are no points in the neighborhood, define the average as zero", so one uses this shorthand. Same goes for things like 0*log(0). But this is nothing more than a temporary local modification to notation.
Are you seriously not allowed to deny having had alien encounters..? I mean, if she'd asked you if you'd ever seen Genghis Khan flying around in a superman costume, could you at least have denied that?
I don't see where it says anything about the family being awarded a settlement. It does say the city is considering negligent homicide charges, specifically because the property is in disrepair and a nuisance, and I suppose if they did charge the owners and if they were convicted that would help the family win a civil suit, but anyway that has relatively little to do with copper theft, it's more more about the risk of owning a property that is in a dangerous state of disrepair.
Source? It's not that I don't believe you, but... Well, actually that's exactly it.
Plus there's the whole driving orangutans to the brink of extinction thing (by far the chillest great apes, man).