What bogeyman? If I was working for Google, I'd be very worried about not doing my job if I didn't go as far as possible at monetizing the data. Google is not in the business of wasting money offering free email accounts. I'm pretty damn sure they get full return on their investment, even if it's not something as obvious as showing targeted ads. Language corpuses of the size that Google has access to are not exactly something you can just buy on a street corner.
Protip: Human life's worth is not infinite. It's not worth saving at a possibly overwhelming cost to others. Stop being so selfish. People die, kids included, get over it. There's only so much you can reasonably do. Avoiding vaccines is not one of the reasonable things to do. I am a parent. Would I be heartbroken if my child died? Sure. This doesn't make me go apeshit crazy about minimizing risk to my children at all costs.
People change their appearances a lot as they grow up. Teenagers, especially girls, look so much alike that 10 years later it's virtually impossible to say "here, it's Jody Smith my coworker, taken 10 years ago when she was 16".
When it comes to viewing the movement of humans through walls, there have already been infrared cameras for years, which in most situations will do anything this wifi approach can do and more.
What they are doing, in fact, is a well known measurement technique. They tweak the transmitted signals so that the receiver sees a null. Then, as soon as you get moving objects introduced into the volume, the receiver get a signal that's mostly related to this object's motion. I have used the same trick with ultrasound transceivers back in high school, I wish I had it written up.
Never mind that at least the transmitters must be running from same reference oscillator, if not all three devices (two transmitters and the receiver).
I agree that while the idea may be novel, its benefits are useless in actual emergencies. When there's an emergency, no one gives a flying fuck about whether your radar might cause interference. Blasting a wideband signal is fine, especially that wideband is resistant to narrowband interference (the usual kind from intentional emitters). Just imagine the backlash at FCC if the police was using an interfering radar during a hostage situation (even better if kids are involved) and someone at FCC had the gall to raise concern. Instant career ender.
Never mind that their project website is a piece of crap written for the illiterate. Give me a fucking break, it sounds like a something a particularly clueless high-schooler would write upon seeing the project.
There's an inconsistency between what we see in the demo and the description. Supposedly the system tracks the angle of the object. Yet what the graph in the video looks like is nothing like the angle. It looks like a simple Doppler output that goes to zero once the subject stops moving.
Good. I won't hold my breath until they actually demonstrate this behavior on a set where it makes a difference. Due to constant factors involved, they may have way more luck with factorization problems, since those can be shown to run fast in the pitiful amounts of "memory" they have available.
Why are we even having this nitpick fest? You and the GP are just silly. We can easily observe the behavior of something as N is increased. If you can't figure out a difference between N^2 and N^3, then you're simply not trying hard enough, that's all. Sure, the measurement may show N^1.8 or N^2.7, with some measure of uncertainity attached to the exponent, like duh, why even argue about it?! Sure as heck you don't get O(N^integer) from the measurements, heck, you don't even get either O() or Omega(), since those are purely theoretical constructs that, by definition, can't be measured. I could have used a different, more verbose, notation, since obviously there's a bunch of obtuse pricks here. What matters is that it takes fucking long, okay, and whatever non-classical computers demonstrated so far take fucking long to do the same thing okay. Let's be practical, this is not a theoretical discussion.
You can't fight an exponential or even polynomial complexity merely by reducing constant factors. It doesn't matter what the constant factor is. All it takes is bumping, say, RSA from 4096 to 16384 bits. That's all you need to beat any conceivable reduction in the constant factor. Just think about it.
Yeah, quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way it operates. Yeah, yeah, whatever. The whole deal isn't about that. It's about whether those quantum effects are actually useful for something. Like, um, making it usefully faster than classical computers. I would be very happy even if they had shown "just" polynomial running time improvements, say executing an O(N^3) algorithm in O(N^2) time. Even that would be a big deal. Somehow, I'm very skeptical that anything of the sort will ever be shown for this particular architecture. I would so like to be wrong on that.
That's not yet very practical, although certainly worth learning just to expand your horizons. You need a proven-safe compiler as well, and those are few and far between. You'll find that the name of Xavier Leroy pops up a whole lot:)
That is very insightful. I concur. Heck, I'd even say that if you want to try something new in bed with your significant other, even that's worthwhile. Good sex life often translates to less grumpiness and more productive office life;)
That is, as long as you have money upfront for expensive lawyers ($500/hr kind, or up from there), or you're lucky enough to find a large law firm willing to take your case on a contingency basis.
Since the document is still classified even if publicly available
Therein lies the problem. Wish wish, shoo shoo, go away problem! Kids may be learning it in grade school, but if someone has a stamp somewhere saying it's classified, then come hell or high water, classified it must remain. That's the kind of rulemaking that only career bureaucrats can come up with.
As in: we wish the problem would just go away. Wish wish, shoo shoo, go away problem!
The source of this madness comes from the regulations that were intended to be applied in an entirely different scenario. An unclassified computer could be used to store classified data that wasn't leaked yet, so the rule was there to protect the information from leaking out in the first place. Of course the geniuses who wrote the rules didn't think of massive leaks where tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents can be read on a newspaper's website. Heck, when the rules were put into place, there were no websites. That's the problem here: applying rules that simply don't make any sense whatsoever in a given scenario. According to the rules, they really need to nuke all of the Guardian's servers from the orbit, and drop incendiary bombs on the homes of all of the poor saps who accessed this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
The quantum effects are obviously useful for *something*, or D-Wave wouldn't manage to be selling these things.
Uh-uh, yeah, sure. That's not how real life works, unfortunately.
What bogeyman? If I was working for Google, I'd be very worried about not doing my job if I didn't go as far as possible at monetizing the data. Google is not in the business of wasting money offering free email accounts. I'm pretty damn sure they get full return on their investment, even if it's not something as obvious as showing targeted ads. Language corpuses of the size that Google has access to are not exactly something you can just buy on a street corner.
Protip: Human life's worth is not infinite. It's not worth saving at a possibly overwhelming cost to others. Stop being so selfish. People die, kids included, get over it. There's only so much you can reasonably do. Avoiding vaccines is not one of the reasonable things to do. I am a parent. Would I be heartbroken if my child died? Sure. This doesn't make me go apeshit crazy about minimizing risk to my children at all costs.
People change their appearances a lot as they grow up. Teenagers, especially girls, look so much alike that 10 years later it's virtually impossible to say "here, it's Jody Smith my coworker, taken 10 years ago when she was 16".
When it comes to viewing the movement of humans through walls, there have already been infrared cameras for years, which in most situations will do anything this wifi approach can do and more.
Can we trade user id's? I'd expect a bit more from a 597. What you claim is an unoriginal figment of your imagination.
What they are doing, in fact, is a well known measurement technique. They tweak the transmitted signals so that the receiver sees a null. Then, as soon as you get moving objects introduced into the volume, the receiver get a signal that's mostly related to this object's motion. I have used the same trick with ultrasound transceivers back in high school, I wish I had it written up.
Never mind that at least the transmitters must be running from same reference oscillator, if not all three devices (two transmitters and the receiver).
I agree that while the idea may be novel, its benefits are useless in actual emergencies. When there's an emergency, no one gives a flying fuck about whether your radar might cause interference. Blasting a wideband signal is fine, especially that wideband is resistant to narrowband interference (the usual kind from intentional emitters). Just imagine the backlash at FCC if the police was using an interfering radar during a hostage situation (even better if kids are involved) and someone at FCC had the gall to raise concern. Instant career ender.
Never mind that their project website is a piece of crap written for the illiterate. Give me a fucking break, it sounds like a something a particularly clueless high-schooler would write upon seeing the project.
There's an inconsistency between what we see in the demo and the description. Supposedly the system tracks the angle of the object. Yet what the graph in the video looks like is nothing like the angle. It looks like a simple Doppler output that goes to zero once the subject stops moving.
And I heard you were deaf. See where this is going?
What I said. Yeah, yeah, whatever. :)
Good. I won't hold my breath until they actually demonstrate this behavior on a set where it makes a difference. Due to constant factors involved, they may have way more luck with factorization problems, since those can be shown to run fast in the pitiful amounts of "memory" they have available.
Why are we even having this nitpick fest? You and the GP are just silly. We can easily observe the behavior of something as N is increased. If you can't figure out a difference between N^2 and N^3, then you're simply not trying hard enough, that's all. Sure, the measurement may show N^1.8 or N^2.7, with some measure of uncertainity attached to the exponent, like duh, why even argue about it?! Sure as heck you don't get O(N^integer) from the measurements, heck, you don't even get either O() or Omega(), since those are purely theoretical constructs that, by definition, can't be measured. I could have used a different, more verbose, notation, since obviously there's a bunch of obtuse pricks here. What matters is that it takes fucking long, okay, and whatever non-classical computers demonstrated so far take fucking long to do the same thing okay. Let's be practical, this is not a theoretical discussion.
No empirical observation will allow you to determine the asymptotic complexity of any implementation of any algorithm.
Said someone who never tried such empirical observations. You're silly.
You can't fight an exponential or even polynomial complexity merely by reducing constant factors. It doesn't matter what the constant factor is. All it takes is bumping, say, RSA from 4096 to 16384 bits. That's all you need to beat any conceivable reduction in the constant factor. Just think about it.
Yeah, quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way it operates. Yeah, yeah, whatever. The whole deal isn't about that. It's about whether those quantum effects are actually useful for something. Like, um, making it usefully faster than classical computers. I would be very happy even if they had shown "just" polynomial running time improvements, say executing an O(N^3) algorithm in O(N^2) time. Even that would be a big deal. Somehow, I'm very skeptical that anything of the sort will ever be shown for this particular architecture. I would so like to be wrong on that.
That's not yet very practical, although certainly worth learning just to expand your horizons. You need a proven-safe compiler as well, and those are few and far between. You'll find that the name of Xavier Leroy pops up a whole lot :)
So obviously people who are only now starting iOS development are irrelevant, according to you. The fuck?!
So I can mod Kerbal Space Program :)
That is very insightful. I concur. Heck, I'd even say that if you want to try something new in bed with your significant other, even that's worthwhile. Good sex life often translates to less grumpiness and more productive office life ;)
For the useless editor: the word "inventory" in the title is entirely redundant.
That is, as long as you have money upfront for expensive lawyers ($500/hr kind, or up from there), or you're lucky enough to find a large law firm willing to take your case on a contingency basis.
Since the document is still classified even if publicly available
Therein lies the problem. Wish wish, shoo shoo, go away problem! Kids may be learning it in grade school, but if someone has a stamp somewhere saying it's classified, then come hell or high water, classified it must remain. That's the kind of rulemaking that only career bureaucrats can come up with.
As in: we wish the problem would just go away. Wish wish, shoo shoo, go away problem!
The source of this madness comes from the regulations that were intended to be applied in an entirely different scenario. An unclassified computer could be used to store classified data that wasn't leaked yet, so the rule was there to protect the information from leaking out in the first place. Of course the geniuses who wrote the rules didn't think of massive leaks where tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents can be read on a newspaper's website. Heck, when the rules were put into place, there were no websites. That's the problem here: applying rules that simply don't make any sense whatsoever in a given scenario. According to the rules, they really need to nuke all of the Guardian's servers from the orbit, and drop incendiary bombs on the homes of all of the poor saps who accessed this stuff.