You'll notice that almost all of these problems would not have happened had they not cut corners wherever they thought they could get away with it.
Cut corners? Can (or cannot) get away with it? Buddy, those are heresies.
It's about the magic dust the free market fairy uses to increase efficiency if only let alone and deregulated.
You can probably guess which group of idiots is complaining.
The security programs manufacturers (AntiMalware/firewalls/etc)? You know, the ones most sensible to changes in kernels and drivers? Even more, for which a "false positive" against a system service/dll may cause the security suite to bomb the OS?
Dumb down the teaching to accommodate the 900 know-nothing and screw the 100 that has chances to learns something? Where's the social benefit in doing this? This is one of the best example of compromise-that-compromises (a.k.a. lose-lose solution).
What a fucking ignorant post. This is Liberia. After a civil war. By educating the 1,000 best candidates at a level where they can achieve, you end up with 1,000 people who may not know as much as you'd like, but who know enough to bring their country one level forward.
And judging by your post, these 1000 would have a lot more intelligence than you show and a much better chance of achieving.
Yes, sure. Quantity over quality: quite an intelligent choice.
(education tends to have a positive feedback into society. Dumb it down and down you'll go; faster as the time passes. Just look around you on how "No kid let behind" is progressing. Have you reached the "no kid gets ahead" level yet?)
Really? Selecting candidates that don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand what's being taught? Wouldn't this be a waste of time/money?
Now say only 100 students pass your entirely reasonable entry criterion, because education in that country is just awfully bad. There are no 1000 students who can pass. What are you going to do? Educate 100 people only? Or take the 1000 best, and scale down your courses so these 1000 can handle, and give 1000 people the best education you can give them?
And what?
Dumb down the teaching to accommodate the 900 know-nothing and screw the 100 that has chances to learns something? Where's the social benefit in doing this? This is one of the best example of compromise-that-compromises (a.k.a. lose-lose solution).
Maintain the level of teaching at normal level and lose in the woods the 900 after the first course? At best, one can try, but the result will be the same after the first semester.
Wouldn't it be better to let the professors engage in research instead?
You have to remember that a test measures several levels of knowledge by having a range of easy to hard questions. A properly performed test on a random population should result in a normal distribution around a defined average. That average is solely based on the test so it has no bearing on the actual intelligence of the population. The test is more sorting the population then comparing it to a standard.
Statistics and distributions or not: have you heard of the zone of the proximal development?. Jump too far outside it and the student is lost and you'll be wasting your time - has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or fairness or statistics, means and standard deviations.
I don't care s/he obtained the maximum score if this maximum is below the threshold: the student will be just the most brilliant from a bunch of exam failures.
What he probably means, but does not express fully, is that the filtering should happen at the end of secondary school (high school, whatever the name is in the country of your preference) instead of at the beginning of university. If you manage to pass the exams of the highest level of secondary school; shouldn't that indicate that you are ready for university?
Well, I do have some issue with that: imagine an University searches for a certain student profile, that is not tested by the "secondary school exit exam" (e.g. special skills or talents. Take a military academy or a music higher education school). After all, in a civilized society, there still exist the so called "academic autonomy", does it not? (if it still does, it mean any University is free, among others, to choose whatever student profile it wants, as long as it's not based on sex/religious/gender discrimination).
Except for the extra cost (supported by the University), what's wrong with an University wishing and organizing an admission exam (if it's board decides that would be beneficial)?
Having an admission exam basically says: we don't trust the exit exam of your school or we think it tests for the wrong things.
Well, that exactly so. And I come back to my original question: what's wrong with the University not trusting the secondary school exams? Even more so as the mistrust seems to be well placed.
If you have to have an admissions exam for a university, access to any university, or to secondary level education, something is wrong with the education system.
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
His Lordship should introduce a law to repeal thermal expansion: after all, the terrorists (with pressure cookers) and leakers (by flying a plane to Russia) take great benefit from it.
(my point: imagining that a issuing a law fixes the problem is something so dumb that only a politician can think of it).
I suppose that depends on what you think is "progress"
I don't suppose the GP post had in mind MDR bugs. Maybe the (real AD) 1984 was better than nowadays in this concern, but... thanks God we got out of their hair style.
(my point... feel free to mod OT: exemplifying the "that depends" - even when right, I find quite pretentiously stupid an "It depends" answer on its own - i.e. with no details on the "dependency variables". Even, "So... it has come to that" is more to-the-point).
If you're playing a file locally, there won't be any packets for you to inspect with wireshark. The browser is opening a file handle and reading data from the file handle.
So how is the data getting from his browser to the ChromeCast ?
Maybe it's magic pixies, or even the fabled Google wormhole
They measured the stability but not the accuracy? Aren't both essentially frequency measurements? Can someone explain what data you would collect that would allow you to determine one but not the other?
Preliminaries: stability (reproducibility) determines precision - in this case, how repeatable is the result obtained by measuring a defined duration. Accuracy would be how close is the measured value to the real one. As long as the the stability is high, one can organise different experiments/measurements to determine the accuracy.
Assume you measure the difference between the time required for a laser beam to bounce from a mirror on the Moon. If your timer is not accurate, you can't be sure on how close the measured distance is to the reality. But here comes the benefit of being 10^18 precise: assume you want to measure the variation of the measured distance between two consecutive bounces. Now, the Moon-Earth distance is roughly 3.844e+8 meters - take it twice into consideration. Assuming perfect sensors, a precision of 10^18 allows you to detect a variation of 7.688e+8 / 1e+18 = 7.688 e-10 m = 0.76 nm; to put it in perspective: you could measure the displacement, caused by a cosmic radiation impact, of the atoms in a CPU gate placed on the Moon.
Where's the applicability you ask? Theoretically, being able to measure that precise (even if not accurate), one should be able to organize experiments on gravitational waves (causing space metric variations) without asking a supernova explosion as the trigger for the experiment.
I've been looking for a while just to help, but it would be tons more efficient if I could download about 100 square KM of images at a time - it only takes a second to tell a page has no items of interest, but many seconds to load each movement either to a new area or to scroll the minim-map any direction.
Ummm... are you sure?
To my mind, at a minimum of 10ft (3.3 m) size of the raft, one'd be looking for objects about 5-7 pixels to my estimate (about 1/6 of the 20m scale unit shown below).
No seriosly, am I doing wrongs searching for so small "redish" objects? (what if it wet and, by a misfortune, strongly reflecting at the moment the photo was taken... so that only a small number of pixels would show red all the rest being toward white - high value/small saturation?)
Hence the "hahahaha" right after that, which was to suggest that the idea that it could be justified is laughable.
Just happens the entire matter with secret courts for national security, there's a justification even if you don't know about it is too serious for me to make jokes about; this comes from the more than half of my life being spent under a former communist regime, with a pretty nasty secret police. (You know? It just happened at that time for people you to just disappear, without anyone around them knowing why: it was secret and it affected your life). I'm rather not inclined to see such things as jokes, even when they genuinely intend to be.
I wasn't trying to justify it ... Are you implying that I didn't know about it when I just brought it up?
My apologies: your post didn't make very clear if you were attempting a justification or not.
Additionally, the assertiveness of your "Elaborate." request and the cheeky tone in "Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified"suggested a total disagreement with the post you replied to (including the fact that you might think there is a justification).
See how quickly the scope creep had set in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Earlier than Jan 20 2012 it has been used for COPYRIGHT violations!
Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence.
Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?
Someone was the first to try civet cat coffee. How did it occur to him?
Paradoxically, seems like at that time the price for normal coffee was too high. O tempora o mores (but even at that time there was no need for fancy analyses).
If this persist for longer (say 15-20 years... it only takes one generation of used to, everybody will be teaching it to their children!), the society you'll be living would show the same weird behaviour of its people as during the secret police in communist countries: use of paraphrases when speaking, carefully planning/doing your everyday actions so that they don't appear to have any element of verboten, every neighbour... heck even members of you family... may be turning you to the authorities.
Well normally I would be with you on this sentiment, you are generally correct but you don't me or sadly my less thoughtful United States of American counter parts very well. We basically bask in giving someone official the middle finger, I seriously doubt any secret police will do well here
I bet that, about an year ago, you wouldn't have belived US spies en-mass on its own citizens.
Time will tell, grasshopper, time will tell...
There's a reason the world hates us and it's because we've basically told it and everyone in charge of it to go fuck itself for many years.
I used to admire you for this... late '60 to mid '70-ies must have been a good time to live there for this very reason. Nowadays...? I'm not so sure there's still something to admire, I'm not seeing the birdie-to-the-man gesture anymore (actually, I'm seeing EFF, but I'm not that sure I can equate EFF with the ethos of an entire american generation).
Hell we leak all your secrets... etc
Apropos leaking...
There was a time when Deep throat and Daniel Ellsberg were applauded for what they did, in spite running against the interest of the then-representing-the-interest-of-the-nation (or pretending to). Past times, better times...
so my only advice is be a polite loving contributing part of society
No qualms with being a contributing part of a civil society. I don't see how disagreeing with the way it goes make one love it less (love and the moral sense are two different things, ask any mother of a criminal).
...part of society and if it turns on you, you don't want any part of it anyway
Do you suggest mass suicide as the only way to get your freedom, would the govt turn against many? Is it love to let the society (or just your community) slide into darkness without doing anything?
Slashdot Mirror
You'll notice that almost all of these problems would not have happened had they not cut corners wherever they thought they could get away with it.
Cut corners? Can (or cannot) get away with it? Buddy, those are heresies.
It's about the magic dust the free market fairy uses to increase efficiency if only let alone and deregulated.
(grin)
You can probably guess which group of idiots is complaining.
The security programs manufacturers (AntiMalware/firewalls/etc)? You know, the ones most sensible to changes in kernels and drivers? Even more, for which a "false positive" against a system service/dll may cause the security suite to bomb the OS?
Behavior like that is Microsoft throwing their devs under the bus (of pissed off customers) for no good reason at all.
Maybe they do want to make a minivan from their customers bus.
Well, that or the failure of border protection? ;)
Hmmm... a (1 in 100000 suicidal) terrorist attack using biological weapons?
Dumb down the teaching to accommodate the 900 know-nothing and screw the 100 that has chances to learns something? Where's the social benefit in doing this? This is one of the best example of compromise-that-compromises (a.k.a. lose-lose solution).
What a fucking ignorant post. This is Liberia. After a civil war. By educating the 1,000 best candidates at a level where they can achieve, you end up with 1,000 people who may not know as much as you'd like, but who know enough to bring their country one level forward. And judging by your post, these 1000 would have a lot more intelligence than you show and a much better chance of achieving.
Yes, sure. Quantity over quality: quite an intelligent choice.
(education tends to have a positive feedback into society. Dumb it down and down you'll go; faster as the time passes. Just look around you on how "No kid let behind" is progressing. Have you reached the "no kid gets ahead" level yet?)
Really? Selecting candidates that don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand what's being taught? Wouldn't this be a waste of time/money?
Now say only 100 students pass your entirely reasonable entry criterion, because education in that country is just awfully bad. There are no 1000 students who can pass. What are you going to do? Educate 100 people only? Or take the 1000 best, and scale down your courses so these 1000 can handle, and give 1000 people the best education you can give them?
And what?
Dumb down the teaching to accommodate the 900 know-nothing and screw the 100 that has chances to learns something? Where's the social benefit in doing this? This is one of the best example of compromise-that-compromises (a.k.a. lose-lose solution).
Maintain the level of teaching at normal level and lose in the woods the 900 after the first course? At best, one can try, but the result will be the same after the first semester.
Wouldn't it be better to let the professors engage in research instead?
You have to remember that a test measures several levels of knowledge by having a range of easy to hard questions. A properly performed test on a random population should result in a normal distribution around a defined average. That average is solely based on the test so it has no bearing on the actual intelligence of the population. The test is more sorting the population then comparing it to a standard.
Statistics and distributions or not: have you heard of the zone of the proximal development?. Jump too far outside it and the student is lost and you'll be wasting your time - has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or fairness or statistics, means and standard deviations.
I don't care s/he obtained the maximum score if this maximum is below the threshold: the student will be just the most brilliant from a bunch of exam failures.
What he probably means, but does not express fully, is that the filtering should happen at the end of secondary school (high school, whatever the name is in the country of your preference) instead of at the beginning of university. If you manage to pass the exams of the highest level of secondary school; shouldn't that indicate that you are ready for university?
Well, I do have some issue with that: imagine an University searches for a certain student profile, that is not tested by the "secondary school exit exam" (e.g. special skills or talents. Take a military academy or a music higher education school).
After all, in a civilized society, there still exist the so called "academic autonomy", does it not? (if it still does, it mean any University is free, among others, to choose whatever student profile it wants, as long as it's not based on sex/religious/gender discrimination).
Except for the extra cost (supported by the University), what's wrong with an University wishing and organizing an admission exam (if it's board decides that would be beneficial)?
Having an admission exam basically says: we don't trust the exit exam of your school or we think it tests for the wrong things.
Well, that exactly so.
And I come back to my original question: what's wrong with the University not trusting the secondary school exams? Even more so as the mistrust seems to be well placed.
The test isn't the goal, selecting students for admission is the goal.
Really? Selecting candidates that don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand what's being taught? Wouldn't this be a waste of time/money?
If you have to have an admissions exam for a university, access to any university, or to secondary level education, something is wrong with the education system.
Why??? No, seriously... what makes you say that?
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
His Lordship should introduce a law to repeal thermal expansion: after all, the terrorists (with pressure cookers) and leakers (by flying a plane to Russia) take great benefit from it.
(my point: imagining that a issuing a law fixes the problem is something so dumb that only a politician can think of it).
It should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with both GPS and DtoA. Which should be all of you by now, goddamn it.
I'm fully familiar with Decimal-to-ASCII, but I don't see how that helps.
OGHIHA (Oh, God, How I Hate Acronyms!)
I suppose that depends on what you think is "progress"
I don't suppose the GP post had in mind MDR bugs. Maybe the (real AD) 1984 was better than nowadays in this concern, but... thanks God we got out of their hair style.
(my point... feel free to mod OT: exemplifying the "that depends" - even when right, I find quite pretentiously stupid an "It depends" answer on its own - i.e. with no details on the "dependency variables". Even, "So... it has come to that" is more to-the-point).
If you're playing a file locally, there won't be any packets for you to inspect with wireshark. The browser is opening a file handle and reading data from the file handle.
So how is the data getting from his browser to the ChromeCast ? Maybe it's magic pixies, or even the fabled Google wormhole
You forgot to consider telepathy.
They measured the stability but not the accuracy? Aren't both essentially frequency measurements? Can someone explain what data you would collect that would allow you to determine one but not the other?
Preliminaries: stability (reproducibility) determines precision - in this case, how repeatable is the result obtained by measuring a defined duration. Accuracy would be how close is the measured value to the real one.
As long as the the stability is high, one can organise different experiments/measurements to determine the accuracy.
Assume you measure the difference between the time required for a laser beam to bounce from a mirror on the Moon. If your timer is not accurate, you can't be sure on how close the measured distance is to the reality.
But here comes the benefit of being 10^18 precise: assume you want to measure the variation of the measured distance between two consecutive bounces. Now, the Moon-Earth distance is roughly 3.844e+8 meters - take it twice into consideration. Assuming perfect sensors, a precision of 10^18 allows you to detect a variation of 7.688e+8 / 1e+18 = 7.688 e-10 m = 0.76 nm; to put it in perspective: you could measure the displacement, caused by a cosmic radiation impact, of the atoms in a CPU gate placed on the Moon.
Where's the applicability you ask? Theoretically, being able to measure that precise (even if not accurate), one should be able to organize experiments on gravitational waves (causing space metric variations) without asking a supernova explosion as the trigger for the experiment.
I've been looking for a while just to help, but it would be tons more efficient if I could download about 100 square KM of images at a time - it only takes a second to tell a page has no items of interest, but many seconds to load each movement either to a new area or to scroll the minim-map any direction.
Ummm... are you sure?
To my mind, at a minimum of 10ft (3.3 m) size of the raft, one'd be looking for objects about 5-7 pixels to my estimate (about 1/6 of the 20m scale unit shown below).
No seriosly, am I doing wrongs searching for so small "redish" objects? (what if it wet and, by a misfortune, strongly reflecting at the moment the photo was taken... so that only a small number of pixels would show red all the rest being toward white - high value/small saturation?)
Terrorizing people is what governments do; can't let private organizations go and grab a piece of the action.
gubmints are inefficient and wasteful... they should have let the free market godly hand to apply terror.
(ducks)
Hence the "hahahaha" right after that, which was to suggest that the idea that it could be justified is laughable.
Just happens the entire matter with secret courts for national security, there's a justification even if you don't know about it is too serious for me to make jokes about; this comes from the more than half of my life being spent under a former communist regime, with a pretty nasty secret police. (You know? It just happened at that time for people you to just disappear, without anyone around them knowing why: it was secret and it affected your life). I'm rather not inclined to see such things as jokes, even when they genuinely intend to be.
so many of them.
Do you predict an Earth quake so strong?
(otherwise, unfortunatelly, I can't see what makes you believe that).
I wasn't trying to justify it
...
Are you implying that I didn't know about it when I just brought it up?
My apologies: your post didn't make very clear if you were attempting a justification or not.
Additionally, the assertiveness of your "Elaborate." request and the cheeky tone in "Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified" suggested a total disagreement with the post you replied to (including the fact that you might think there is a justification).
See how quickly the scope creep had set in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Earlier than Jan 20 2012 it has been used for COPYRIGHT violations!
What the FUCK has happened to my country?
Fixed those verb tenses for you.
Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence.
Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?
Captain Old News?
I don't see how this makes it right.
That seems a bit excessive.
Are you that naïve to think those system are never going to be abused?
Someone was the first to try civet cat coffee. How did it occur to him?
Paradoxically, seems like at that time the price for normal coffee was too high.
O tempora o mores (but even at that time there was no need for fancy analyses).
If this persist for longer (say 15-20 years... it only takes one generation of used to, everybody will be teaching it to their children!), the society you'll be living would show the same weird behaviour of its people as during the secret police in communist countries: use of paraphrases when speaking, carefully planning/doing your everyday actions so that they don't appear to have any element of verboten, every neighbour... heck even members of you family... may be turning you to the authorities.
Well normally I would be with you on this sentiment, you are generally correct but you don't me or sadly my less thoughtful United States of American counter parts very well. We basically bask in giving someone official the middle finger, I seriously doubt any secret police will do well here
I bet that, about an year ago, you wouldn't have belived US spies en-mass on its own citizens.
Time will tell, grasshopper, time will tell...
There's a reason the world hates us and it's because we've basically told it and everyone in charge of it to go fuck itself for many years.
I used to admire you for this... late '60 to mid '70-ies must have been a good time to live there for this very reason. Nowadays...? I'm not so sure there's still something to admire, I'm not seeing the birdie-to-the-man gesture anymore (actually, I'm seeing EFF, but I'm not that sure I can equate EFF with the ethos of an entire american generation).
Hell we leak all your secrets ... etc
Apropos leaking ...
There was a time when Deep throat and Daniel Ellsberg were applauded for what they did, in spite running against the interest of the then-representing-the-interest-of-the-nation (or pretending to). Past times, better times...
so my only advice is be a polite loving contributing part of society
No qualms with being a contributing part of a civil society. I don't see how disagreeing with the way it goes make one love it less (love and the moral sense are two different things, ask any mother of a criminal).
...part of society and if it turns on you, you don't want any part of it anyway
Do you suggest mass suicide as the only way to get your freedom, would the govt turn against many?
Is it love to let the society (or just your community) slide into darkness without doing anything?