The basics are part of what is killing our budget. We are paying expenses for education, health care, public safety etc to cover a segment of the population that doesn't pay any taxes at all because they aren't supposed to be here in the first place.
The state needs to spend in order to keep up with population growth. It doesn't matter what the GDP is doing, the people require a certain amount of money. The alternative is to live with a lower quality of life, but we chose to have a larger budget instead.
But it's not always easy being big - and getting bigger at a rapid clip - in the middle of a desert. The growth that Arizona - and greater Phoenix, in particular - are experiencing has placed a great strain on the use of public land, roadways, and precious natural resources - especially water.
We live in a desert man, where do you think we get our water from? Do you think it's cheap? What about the people coming across the border and using emergency services, law enforcement, power, water, etc? Where are their taxes? Why am I paying for them? Maybe if they were paying their share we would have a larger GDP and you wouldn't be complaining that spending is outpacing the GDP.
There are a *lot* of issues in this state which require a lot of money. If you don't want spending to outpace the GDP, then be prepared to accept a lower quality of life as the population continues to rise.
Not that this will explain all of our problems (due to the fact that there's not only one reason), but just like California we're a major destination for illegal immigrants which send their children to schools, get healthcare, require law enforcement and emergency services, use water and power, etc. They don't pay any taxes.
It's no more fair to say that our problems are entirely due to theft or corruption then it is to say that our problems are entirely due to immigration.
Personally, other than maybe someone like Joe Arpaio and his office (which would not be capable of looting our treasury for tens of billions), I'm not seeing a lot of corruption in this state. Things run pretty smoothly.
AI cant make a conscious decision that is not preprogrammed.
That's not true. Look at the PROLOG language, or LISP. You don't need to program all possible decisions into an agent, you just need to give it the capacity to learn and assign various weights and things to the things it thinks are important so that it can quantify what the best decision is. With PROLOG specifically you can give an agent the ability to draw new conclusions based on things it already knows (which it then adds to its list of things that it knows).
What kind of lame joke is that? Having a lot of storage is now limited to the Microsoft crowd? Can Linux not handle 2TB? My computer at home has a 2TB RAID array. Is it necessary to work for Microsoft if you want to run a TB or more of storage? Most NAS devices are 1TB or more.
Hell, Seagate has a 1.5TB Barracuda drive for less than $150. So are you saying that you need to work for Microsoft in order to afford a $150 drive, or are you saying that only Windows is capable of using a drive that size? I'm confused where you think the humor is.
Because programming -IS- Logic. If you tell the program to do soemthing at Random, its not a very good AI. If you tell it to do the most strategically sound plan, it doesn't vary much at all.
You tell it to try to learn the rules, and make the best decision that it can.
Consider AI for chess. The best AI can beat any human because it can spend the processing power to look, say, 25 moves into the future. When the computer considers all possible moves and for each one looks at all possible next moves, next moves, etc, for 25 turns, it's going to be able to quantify which move it should make now to have the best chance at winning. When you download a chess game and you can set the difficulty, the main thing they change is how far ahead the AI is allowed to look. An "easy" AI might only look 3 moves ahead. It's been a while since I took any AI courses, but I seem to remember that the human masters like Kasparov are capable of looking ahead around 10-12 turns.
So it's not that you tell the AI to make bad decisions, you simply limit the information it has to work with. This is more equivalent to what most humans do when they make bad decisions ("I didn't think of that").
Feel free to read anything related to this, but they don't refer to it as "podcasting" in the patent from 2003. That's just what the headline says. The term is more recent than the patent.
And since it can be heavy traffic (not quite bumper to bumper, but heavy still) as far as you can see, you know that if you move over, then your going to be the next guy who either gets stuck in the right lane, or dangerously causes 40 cars to hit the brakes.
And your solution is to stay in the left lane and just have traffic back up behind you. Brilliant.
The danger is in trying to move back to the left with such a drastic speed difference.
Well why don't you just stay in the right lane then? Is it because people are traveling slower than you want to? You don't want to be in the "slow" lane, you just want to go slow in the fast lane. Isn't it worth it to safely travel in the slow lane and have a little more patience instead of trying to shave a few minutes off your commute?
Then quite trying to drive 20 mph over the speed limit
I don't drive 20 over, on our freeways here where we have 4+ lanes going each direction with a 65mph limit I stick to 75/80 (e.g.). A lot of other people do too. I'm not exactly alone on this. What irritates me is when I come up on someone going 60 in the fast lane. It's dangerous for them to be doing that. It also doesn't help that half the time they're on their cell phone anyway and are oblivious to anything going on around them. But hey, the left lane is statistically the safest lane so might as well drift over there while I take this call.
Believe it or not, but being a safe, careful driver and going over the speed limit are not mutually exclusive. That highway in particular could easily support a 75mph speed limit like the smaller highways that run outside the city. The danger is when a pack of cars going 5 or 10 over the speed limit comes up on someone going 5 or 10 under. The person posing a danger in that scenario is the person going slower than the flow of traffic while driving in the fast lane.
I keep my eyes on the road, I don't take calls while I drive, I look for other people who don't have a clue what's going on around them, and I get around and put as much distance between them and myself as I can.
I don't know where you live, but I've never, ever seen a 30mph difference between 2 consecutive lanes in heavy traffic. Maybe the difference between the far left and far right lanes is a lot, but not 2 consecutive lanes. There's no danger for you to slow down to match the speed of the lane next to you (with your blinker on), get over, and let everyone pass. There's no danger there. It's all about you, it's not about safety. It's also dangerous to be a moving obstacle in high-speed heavy traffic, but you don't seem worried about being that.
What do you mean, you mean the employees who are specifically there to field those requests?
Last week, a document surfaced online showing concept sketches for a Microsoft store where people can order personalized laptops, take classes and get help from experts.
Redmond-based Microsoft's stores are a way for the company to introduce consumers to its products in person, but they are not meant as a product showcase or a replacement for big electronics stores, Stocks said.
RTFA: it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Also, when was the last time you saw a laptop with "Microsoft" on the case? Microsoft *still* doesn't make their own laptops, they will *still* be selling laptops from Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, etc.
Just know, by doing that, you're not doing anything "to" them, but you're putting yourself at great risk. If one of those guys is driving a Ford POS from the 70's, you might be his ticket to a new ride. He is doing the speed limit (but being an asshole), you're tailgating. He hits the breaks, you (and your insurance) get to pay for a new car. Good luck.
Yeah I hear you, when I have a choice to pass, even if it's in the HOV line, I'll take it. If it's not possible to pass (but it is possible for the guy in front to change lanes), then I'll attempt to spatially encourage that person to change lanes.
The only time I've ever almost hit a guy was a guy I wasn't even trying to tailgate. I was merging onto the freeway and he was driving an old pickup in the right lane, and the car in the next lane over was about 1.5 car lengths behind the truck. They were both going the same speed. So in order to get into the left lanes I had to come close to the truck in order to get in front of the guy to my left, and when I switched lanes the truck decided to give me a brake check. I didn't hit him, but came close. I wasn't even trying to tailgate him either, he can go as slow as he wants in the right lane, I was just trying to get over.
If the speed limit is 65 and and both lanes have people next to each other going 65, get over it, no law is being broken.
Not necessarily. Some states call that a moving roadblock, which impedes the flow of traffic. You can also get a ticket for going too slow on the highway, for the same reason.
I'm not going to move into the right lane and get stuck behind someone going 55, unable to change lanes because everyone on my left is going 25-30mph faster than me.
OK, so instead of inconvenience yourself by driving behind someone going slower than you want to, you instead inconvenience everyone behind you wanting to go faster than you. Hey man, thanks for making the world a better place. I mean, it's all about you, right? Screw everyone else.
No, we get that in the US also. I've seen plenty of traffic jams where when you get up to the cause you realize that everyone is slowing down because there was an accident on the OTHER SIDE of the highway. ALL of our lanes are perfectly open, but everyone slows down because there's a cop with his lights flashing sitting 100 feet away on the other side of the highway.
Like the guy a few posts up said, the people who irritate me the most are the people who sit in the fast and go the same speed as everyone in the other lanes. We've got a 4/5-lane highway with a speed limit of 65 running through town.
Going home from work I'll see quite a bit of traffic in the right two lanes, a little less in the third lane, and hardly any in the left lane. Except the one jackass who's going the same speed as everyone in the other lanes and just wants his (her?) own lane. I have no problem running up on those people and sitting on their bumper until they get a clue.
If you're going the same speed as people in the lane next to you, get in the lane next to you.
The cop-drivers like you said are always good for a laugh. On the same 65mph highway I'll come up on a clump of cars and, sure enough, there's a cop leading the pack. These people might be going 5 or 10 mph below the speed limit, but no one wants to pass the cop. Assuming there's a lane open I always enjoy passing the clot at 10mph over everyone else and leaving them wondering why the cop isn't pulling me over.
I saw this once in my rearview, a cop pulled on the onramp and everyone behind him slowed to match his speed (which was lower than the limit). I was the last car in front of him and for the next several miles until we were out of view I just watched the headlights in the mirror get farther and farther back, not a single person passed him. There was a miles-wide gap between myself and the cars in front of me, and the cop.
Yeah, we should have a daily traffic thread to get this out.
the writer is somehow unaware that iPhone unlocking is trivial.
..says the guy with a Slashdot account. Ask the general public how they feel about some nebulous process they don't understand that fundamentally, and contrary to Apple's wishes, changes the way their new $500 device works. Don't assume that the general public is as technically literate as anyone here. Most people would never even understand why unlocking would be "necessary" or what it even does, let alone how to do it and not break your phone.
It's trivial for me to write an HTML form that submits to a PHP page and sends an email, but judging by the questions people ask on programming forums, that's not even trivial to most beginning developers, let alone the general public.
It's trivial for someone I work with to change the oil in their car, but I still saw a (grown) girl at the gas station the other day who couldn't figure out how to operate the air hose to fill up her tires.
It's trivial for me to figure out which version of the Flash player I have installed, but when I want that information from my end users I need to send that request to their corporate HQ, who sends it to the regional manager, who sends it to the general manager at the location, who then needs to walk the end user through the process, and get the information back to me.
In the above examples, the beginning developer, the girl at the gas station, and the end user who can't figure out what the Flash player is are all possibly iPhone users. You expect those people to be comfortable with something that you find trivial?
Do you really think it would be easier to set up (and periodically reinstall) a million copies of Windows vs. telling Linux to virtualize a million instances? I mean, it would be nice to run on the real deal but there are practical issues to consider.
The research isn't to determine how Windows reacts to a botnet. They're trying to figure out how the botnet itself communicates and spreads. Or, more specifically, what the botnet looks like as it is spreading. Windows is just the platform that they're running the botnet on (sort of), but they don't really care how Windows reacts to it.
In other words, they're studying the botnet itself, not the infrastructure it runs on.
Slashdot Mirror
The basics are part of what is killing our budget. We are paying expenses for education, health care, public safety etc to cover a segment of the population that doesn't pay any taxes at all because they aren't supposed to be here in the first place.
Wow, you went to court? I've got 3 tickets sitting on my desk waiting for someone to actually serve them to me.
The state needs to spend in order to keep up with population growth. It doesn't matter what the GDP is doing, the people require a certain amount of money. The alternative is to live with a lower quality of life, but we chose to have a larger budget instead.
But it's not always easy being big - and getting bigger at a rapid clip - in the middle of a desert. The growth that Arizona - and greater Phoenix, in particular - are experiencing has placed a great strain on the use of public land, roadways, and precious natural resources - especially water.
We live in a desert man, where do you think we get our water from? Do you think it's cheap? What about the people coming across the border and using emergency services, law enforcement, power, water, etc? Where are their taxes? Why am I paying for them? Maybe if they were paying their share we would have a larger GDP and you wouldn't be complaining that spending is outpacing the GDP.
There are a *lot* of issues in this state which require a lot of money. If you don't want spending to outpace the GDP, then be prepared to accept a lower quality of life as the population continues to rise.
Not that this will explain all of our problems (due to the fact that there's not only one reason), but just like California we're a major destination for illegal immigrants which send their children to schools, get healthcare, require law enforcement and emergency services, use water and power, etc. They don't pay any taxes.
It's no more fair to say that our problems are entirely due to theft or corruption then it is to say that our problems are entirely due to immigration.
Personally, other than maybe someone like Joe Arpaio and his office (which would not be capable of looting our treasury for tens of billions), I'm not seeing a lot of corruption in this state. Things run pretty smoothly.
AI cant make a conscious decision that is not preprogrammed.
That's not true. Look at the PROLOG language, or LISP. You don't need to program all possible decisions into an agent, you just need to give it the capacity to learn and assign various weights and things to the things it thinks are important so that it can quantify what the best decision is. With PROLOG specifically you can give an agent the ability to draw new conclusions based on things it already knows (which it then adds to its list of things that it knows).
We're not as far from this as you might think..
What kind of lame joke is that? Having a lot of storage is now limited to the Microsoft crowd? Can Linux not handle 2TB? My computer at home has a 2TB RAID array. Is it necessary to work for Microsoft if you want to run a TB or more of storage? Most NAS devices are 1TB or more.
Hell, Seagate has a 1.5TB Barracuda drive for less than $150. So are you saying that you need to work for Microsoft in order to afford a $150 drive, or are you saying that only Windows is capable of using a drive that size? I'm confused where you think the humor is.
Because programming -IS- Logic. If you tell the program to do soemthing at Random, its not a very good AI. If you tell it to do the most strategically sound plan, it doesn't vary much at all.
You tell it to try to learn the rules, and make the best decision that it can.
Consider AI for chess. The best AI can beat any human because it can spend the processing power to look, say, 25 moves into the future. When the computer considers all possible moves and for each one looks at all possible next moves, next moves, etc, for 25 turns, it's going to be able to quantify which move it should make now to have the best chance at winning. When you download a chess game and you can set the difficulty, the main thing they change is how far ahead the AI is allowed to look. An "easy" AI might only look 3 moves ahead. It's been a while since I took any AI courses, but I seem to remember that the human masters like Kasparov are capable of looking ahead around 10-12 turns.
So it's not that you tell the AI to make bad decisions, you simply limit the information it has to work with. This is more equivalent to what most humans do when they make bad decisions ("I didn't think of that").
Did you buy a game console thinking it was a laptop? Do you think the Xbox is a threat to Dell or Asus?
Feel free to read anything related to this, but they don't refer to it as "podcasting" in the patent from 2003. That's just what the headline says. The term is more recent than the patent.
I'm sorry, in order to post in this thread you need to make a Clippy joke, it's a requirement.
It's a good point though, unless Siri is the future functionality.
And since it can be heavy traffic (not quite bumper to bumper, but heavy still) as far as you can see, you know that if you move over, then your going to be the next guy who either gets stuck in the right lane, or dangerously causes 40 cars to hit the brakes.
And your solution is to stay in the left lane and just have traffic back up behind you. Brilliant.
The danger is in trying to move back to the left with such a drastic speed difference.
Well why don't you just stay in the right lane then? Is it because people are traveling slower than you want to? You don't want to be in the "slow" lane, you just want to go slow in the fast lane. Isn't it worth it to safely travel in the slow lane and have a little more patience instead of trying to shave a few minutes off your commute?
Then quite trying to drive 20 mph over the speed limit
I don't drive 20 over, on our freeways here where we have 4+ lanes going each direction with a 65mph limit I stick to 75/80 (e.g.). A lot of other people do too. I'm not exactly alone on this. What irritates me is when I come up on someone going 60 in the fast lane. It's dangerous for them to be doing that. It also doesn't help that half the time they're on their cell phone anyway and are oblivious to anything going on around them. But hey, the left lane is statistically the safest lane so might as well drift over there while I take this call.
Believe it or not, but being a safe, careful driver and going over the speed limit are not mutually exclusive. That highway in particular could easily support a 75mph speed limit like the smaller highways that run outside the city. The danger is when a pack of cars going 5 or 10 over the speed limit comes up on someone going 5 or 10 under. The person posing a danger in that scenario is the person going slower than the flow of traffic while driving in the fast lane.
I keep my eyes on the road, I don't take calls while I drive, I look for other people who don't have a clue what's going on around them, and I get around and put as much distance between them and myself as I can.
I don't know where you live, but I've never, ever seen a 30mph difference between 2 consecutive lanes in heavy traffic. Maybe the difference between the far left and far right lanes is a lot, but not 2 consecutive lanes. There's no danger for you to slow down to match the speed of the lane next to you (with your blinker on), get over, and let everyone pass. There's no danger there. It's all about you, it's not about safety. It's also dangerous to be a moving obstacle in high-speed heavy traffic, but you don't seem worried about being that.
What's the problem? Is the only thing stopping you from visiting Scottsdale is that you don't know which state it's in and have no way of finding out?
What do you mean, you mean the employees who are specifically there to field those requests?
Last week, a document surfaced online showing concept sketches for a Microsoft store where people can order personalized laptops, take classes and get help from experts.
Redmond-based Microsoft's stores are a way for the company to introduce consumers to its products in person, but they are not meant as a product showcase or a replacement for big electronics stores, Stocks said.
RTFA: it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Also, when was the last time you saw a laptop with "Microsoft" on the case? Microsoft *still* doesn't make their own laptops, they will *still* be selling laptops from Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, etc.
Stupidity at its finest indeed.
Just know, by doing that, you're not doing anything "to" them, but you're putting yourself at great risk. If one of those guys is driving a Ford POS from the 70's, you might be his ticket to a new ride. He is doing the speed limit (but being an asshole), you're tailgating. He hits the breaks, you (and your insurance) get to pay for a new car. Good luck.
Yeah I hear you, when I have a choice to pass, even if it's in the HOV line, I'll take it. If it's not possible to pass (but it is possible for the guy in front to change lanes), then I'll attempt to spatially encourage that person to change lanes.
The only time I've ever almost hit a guy was a guy I wasn't even trying to tailgate. I was merging onto the freeway and he was driving an old pickup in the right lane, and the car in the next lane over was about 1.5 car lengths behind the truck. They were both going the same speed. So in order to get into the left lanes I had to come close to the truck in order to get in front of the guy to my left, and when I switched lanes the truck decided to give me a brake check. I didn't hit him, but came close. I wasn't even trying to tailgate him either, he can go as slow as he wants in the right lane, I was just trying to get over.
If the speed limit is 65 and and both lanes have people next to each other going 65, get over it, no law is being broken.
Not necessarily. Some states call that a moving roadblock, which impedes the flow of traffic. You can also get a ticket for going too slow on the highway, for the same reason.
I'm not going to move into the right lane and get stuck behind someone going 55, unable to change lanes because everyone on my left is going 25-30mph faster than me.
OK, so instead of inconvenience yourself by driving behind someone going slower than you want to, you instead inconvenience everyone behind you wanting to go faster than you. Hey man, thanks for making the world a better place. I mean, it's all about you, right? Screw everyone else.
No, we get that in the US also. I've seen plenty of traffic jams where when you get up to the cause you realize that everyone is slowing down because there was an accident on the OTHER SIDE of the highway. ALL of our lanes are perfectly open, but everyone slows down because there's a cop with his lights flashing sitting 100 feet away on the other side of the highway.
Like the guy a few posts up said, the people who irritate me the most are the people who sit in the fast and go the same speed as everyone in the other lanes. We've got a 4/5-lane highway with a speed limit of 65 running through town.
Going home from work I'll see quite a bit of traffic in the right two lanes, a little less in the third lane, and hardly any in the left lane. Except the one jackass who's going the same speed as everyone in the other lanes and just wants his (her?) own lane. I have no problem running up on those people and sitting on their bumper until they get a clue.
If you're going the same speed as people in the lane next to you, get in the lane next to you.
The cop-drivers like you said are always good for a laugh. On the same 65mph highway I'll come up on a clump of cars and, sure enough, there's a cop leading the pack. These people might be going 5 or 10 mph below the speed limit, but no one wants to pass the cop. Assuming there's a lane open I always enjoy passing the clot at 10mph over everyone else and leaving them wondering why the cop isn't pulling me over.
I saw this once in my rearview, a cop pulled on the onramp and everyone behind him slowed to match his speed (which was lower than the limit). I was the last car in front of him and for the next several miles until we were out of view I just watched the headlights in the mirror get farther and farther back, not a single person passed him. There was a miles-wide gap between myself and the cars in front of me, and the cop.
Yeah, we should have a daily traffic thread to get this out.
So I use M$'s search and its like here's your answer 'dumbass' you should have already know it.
...yet something tells me that anyone who refers to Microsoft as "M$" has no problem using something called "The Gimp".
I suppose there's more than one reason that I'm in development rather than marketing, but thanks for asking.
TraCorp, I mentioned that our website was at tracorp.com.
the writer is somehow unaware that iPhone unlocking is trivial.
..says the guy with a Slashdot account. Ask the general public how they feel about some nebulous process they don't understand that fundamentally, and contrary to Apple's wishes, changes the way their new $500 device works. Don't assume that the general public is as technically literate as anyone here. Most people would never even understand why unlocking would be "necessary" or what it even does, let alone how to do it and not break your phone.
It's trivial for me to write an HTML form that submits to a PHP page and sends an email, but judging by the questions people ask on programming forums, that's not even trivial to most beginning developers, let alone the general public.
It's trivial for someone I work with to change the oil in their car, but I still saw a (grown) girl at the gas station the other day who couldn't figure out how to operate the air hose to fill up her tires.
It's trivial for me to figure out which version of the Flash player I have installed, but when I want that information from my end users I need to send that request to their corporate HQ, who sends it to the regional manager, who sends it to the general manager at the location, who then needs to walk the end user through the process, and get the information back to me.
In the above examples, the beginning developer, the girl at the gas station, and the end user who can't figure out what the Flash player is are all possibly iPhone users. You expect those people to be comfortable with something that you find trivial?
Talk about irrelevant opinions..
Do you really think it would be easier to set up (and periodically reinstall) a million copies of Windows vs. telling Linux to virtualize a million instances? I mean, it would be nice to run on the real deal but there are practical issues to consider.
The research isn't to determine how Windows reacts to a botnet. They're trying to figure out how the botnet itself communicates and spreads. Or, more specifically, what the botnet looks like as it is spreading. Windows is just the platform that they're running the botnet on (sort of), but they don't really care how Windows reacts to it.
In other words, they're studying the botnet itself, not the infrastructure it runs on.