I'm not the OP, but I gotta say, putting atheist "arguments" in scare quotes pretty much sums up how much of a thoughtful discussion you are able to have.
The bridge inspector should only be held accountable if he failed to carry out his work according to minimum standards of bridge inspecting, which I'm sure are laid out in detail somewhere. The same should be true for earthquake predictors, but since earthquake prediction is much less of a sure thing than bridge inspection, the minimum standards are much lower as well. It's not relevant if the statement they made was true, it is relevant if the statement they made was reasonably justified based on minimum standards of earthquake prediction. If a bridge fails in a way that a bridge inspector is not tasked to inspect, then the bridge inspector is not at fault. The difference is that we have a very good idea about the things that make bridges fail, while we don't know how to predict earthquakes with certainty.
We agree on what you meant. To see the problem, imagine that you are sending the same message over and over again. I know that that is not what is going on here, it is only an analogy. The message you are sending has length L, while your noise has some distribution X. Then the message lengths that an attacker is going to see is going to come from the distribution L+X. The mean of L+X is going to be L plus the mean of X. The attacker already knows the mean of X from the source code. So if he can determine the mean of the distribution of the packet lengths then he can just subtract the mean of X from that to get L. Now the higher the variance of X is, the more samples the attacker will have to get to be confident that he has the right number, but that will also make some packets very long. This isn't a rigorous argument, but I hope it's clear that sending enough packets is going to reveal L, and then sending just 1 packet does reveal something about L also, even if you can make the amount of information revealed small by increasing the variance (and hence average packet length). There is a difference between secure and having side channels. E.g. SSH reveals at what time you are sending information, so SSH doesn't keep ALL of your information safe. That doesn't mean that SSH is insecure, it just means cryptography is tricky.
If the padding is random you'll decrease the amount of information leaked, but there may still be enough information leaked to reconstruct some conversations. What you really need for total security from this attack is to eliminate the side-channel completely, such as by sending packets of the same size and with the same frequency no matter how much data you've actually got that needs sending. That is a form of padding too, but it is better than random.
I meant that they order by author's last name within the categories. I certainly agree that if the computer system isn't done well, then there is ample opportunity for the digital version to be far worse than a old-fashioned library. Just imagine how useful this library will be if the robotic retrieval system turns out to have frequent mechanical issues... I think a well-executed computerized library can be better than an old-fashioned library, but I grant that it's possible that the library in the story won't achieve that.
I've seen two points brought up. One is that you can stumble upon other books in the same Dewey classification and/or with the same author because they will be nearby on the shelves. I have every confidence that a computer can display the books on your screen that would be around the book you are looking at in a physical library. However, a computer wouldn't do that because computers are better at finding related information than an ordering by author's last name is. The other point is that if a book isn't digitized, it's more trouble than it's worth to ask the robot to bring you a book with a mildly interesting title just to glance briefly at a random page. I'll grant the latter point, but I still prefer computers' ability to give you reviews and related titles and other information.
It is neither a particle nor a wave, so there is no "when it is a particle/when it is a wave". Instead, it is something whose behavior is like that of a particle in some ways and like that of a wave in other ways, but it is never actually a wave or a particle. It is its own thing - the analogies to waves and particles are just there to aid understanding, they are not accurate descriptions. I imagine that what is meant is that the density of the probability field (or whatever the correct term is) decreases uniformly in all directions with distance - no direction is favored over another.
Since he can't do anything else, the only way he can hide the fact that he isn't calling the shots on the situation is to pretend that the only thing he can do is actually what he wants to do. People really do that kind of thing, especially people who crave power so extremely that they do what it takes to become the political head of a country.
I agree. It is very rational for each individual market participant, and sometimes it even works out well for the whole as well. The problem is that if you are investing based on your expectation of other people's expectations, then if you really are rational, you are engaging in a psychological endeavor of trying to predict people over trying to predict the value of the actual stock. Now people aren't complete morons on average, so there is going to be some correlation between value and people's expectation of value and between that and your expectation of people's expectation of value. However, you are now twice removed from value by two levels of expectation. Worse, you are not predicting a persons' expectation, you are predicting a group's expectation, and in that group every cognitive bias that people have is sure to be played out at least a little -- with a person you couldn't be sure, but with a group you can. The value of the stock is fundamentally unpredictable and not even necessarily well defined, but people's cognitive biases are very well studied over the last decade. So it can easily become a game where predicting psychology of other market participants is more important than predicting value, and then there's trouble because the market becomes divorced from reality. The trouble comes in precisely because it is rational for each market participant to focus on the important thing, and if that thing isn't real value, then the rational market participants won't focus on that.
On the other hand, if I could do my life over, I would have picked music instead of programming. One gets you laid, the other makes girls run away.
I'll give you a little tip that helps immensely: When you say that you are a computer programmer, I'm guessing right now that you have in the back of your mind that she's going to count that as a minus. That's the main problem right there. When you say you are a programmer, what should matter to you (to be attractive) is what you think about programming, not what she thinks about it. State that you are a programmer using your voice, face and body in a way that makes it clear that you are proud of being a programmer. Don't overdo it and don't say that you are proud of it, and don't try to get her to approve of you for being a programmer, just be proud of it for yourself and let that be sub-communicated when you talk about you being a programmer. Say it like it's your favorite topic of conversation and you are so happy that she brought it up (but don't go on to actually talk about it if it isn't your favorite topic)
She may try to challenge you on that by saying something like "isn't that really boring? I've always hated computers". At this point your thinking should reflect that she's being a little weird instead of thinking that she's rejection you. She's probably not rejection you, she's trying to learn if you are for real (and doing it in a rude, weird way, but oh well - let's forgive her for now). You can just respond for example "I love programming and I wouldn't want to do anything else." Say it in a good, upbeat mood as though it never occurred to you that she might have been rejecting you, or if she was, as though it never occurred to you that that might be bad or important to you. The conversation about whether programming is exciting or boring is now over - don't continue it unless she asks more about it. It's not important that you make her think that programming is exciting, it's only important that you stated that you think it is exciting and that's why you do it. And it's only important to state that if she questions it - otherwise it should just be assumed from the non-verbal way in which you said that you are a programmer. Just make sure that you can keep up a positive internal state of joy about being a programmer even if she curls up her face in disgust and starts looking around the room to avoid eye contact (won't happen, but let's suppose). She's being weird, but you forgive her, you're amused - that is all. For example in that case you might laugh and say "I get the feeling you don't like programming very much." Don't let it put you in a bad mood - she's being weird, not you. In fact, a woman who would behave like that is probably not going to ever be pleasant to be around for anyone, so she's probably not what you are looking for even for a one-night stand.
Your position is that programming is exciting to you and that's why you do it - it is no concern to you if other people don't like it (obviously don't be aggressive about that attitude - that would imply that you are concerned). But don't say that, just behave as a person who believed that 100% would behave (it helps a lot if you actually believe it). If someone told you that they hate walking, you wouldn't be self-conscious about how you are an unlovable loser for even making use of your legs, it wouldn't really be natural to defend walking, you'd just perhaps be a little amused. In interactions with women (and really people in general) it's not so much about what you do, how tall you are or anything like that. It's about what you believe and how you behave. It's not about facts, it's about the social interpretation of those facts. If you believe that women won't love you or have sex with you because you are a programmer, then they will believe it too. Now there may be other things you are doing that is unattractive to women, but just being a programmer by itself really doesn't have to be any kind of a problem unless you yourself make it one.
If you go for it all-out, functional programming will seem totally alien to you for a little while. The reason for that is that you need to relearn your vocabulary of small structures such as loops and how to change state. At some point you'll wake up and realize that once you can do the small stuff in functional programming, it's actually exactly the same as any other kind of programming at a higher level. The set of limitations and possibilities are just a little different. The main initial stumbling block to functional programming is this: you can't change variables (or anything), but you can call a function with different parameters (with x=3 instead of x=2) and that achieves the same thing. The call stack isn't limited by stack space and tail recursion is used so that you don't get in trouble with nesting function calls very deep.
It could be future earnings. It could also be the expectation that other investors are going to be willing to buy the stock for a higher price in future. I think most investing is based more on the latter and less on the former.
It's meant to indicate the level of expense being incurred through taxes in Europe. However, since education is tax-financed it makes sense to prevent students from taking time away from their studies to wait tables - that way they will be done sooner leading to smaller education expenses and higher tax revenues from their degreed work. Having students keep an unrelated work is equivalent to exchanging later skilled labor for now selling smarties at a counter which isn't a good deal for the country. They lose the money if they work very much, and it is quite a small amount - indeed it is even significantly less than unemployment benefits. Healthcare is not the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in Europe the way it is in the US and consequently healthcare is not a concern the way it is in the US. Obviously that's not free so indeed taxes are higher in Europe which was the point being discussed.
I don't know why US government should be spectacularly less efficient than other governments. You do spend significantly more on wars, though. I don't know of any country in the world where the taxes aren't made hard to see by having many smaller taxes rather than just income tax and sales tax. It's not an American thing.
Yet in some European countries the roads are in good condition, there are no beggars on the streets (or elsewhere), education up to university level is provided by the state, students are actually given a modest salary for studying and healthcare is provided by the state. Americans are paying very little taxes compared to that, and you also receive not much service from the state as a result. Did you know that gasoline is half the price in the US than it is in some European countries and cars are one third the price? Sales taxes are 25% in some countries and you can be paying more than 50% in income tax.
That's terrible because there's no telling what your possibly insane or manipulative daughter is going to perceive as harassment and there is no telling either what her possibly insane, aggressive or just plain bored friends are going to perceive as a call to go beat up some random hapless guy. Once we are down with group beat-downs being acceptable, how are you going to prevent your group of vigilante misfits from beating up anyone they don't like and who don't have enough standing in the community to create some back-lash? In fact, it seems you are exactly asking to have a group of (by definition) criminals who beat up people they don't like. What a wonderful world we'll have when that guy's relatives take your advice and go beat your daughter and her friends senseless too. There is no place for your views in a civilized society.
It's not that people feel icky around those who try to be likable. What feels icky is someone who is trying to be likable but who isn't very good at it yet. Once you get good at it, you'll be perceived as just likable without the ickiness. The problem is not trying, the problem is trying without already having the skills. How do you get the skills? By trying and failing many times. At that point you can stop thinking about it and people won't know how you got there. Except you'll only get there if you've tried before often enough to have gotten good at it. You won't get to that point without really, really wanting it, and geeks don't - not to the level that other people do. The people you think never tried yet are good at it are people who wanted it badly enough when they were younger and you didn't know them then or wouldn't have perceived what they were doing as trying at that age so you don't remember. There is no such thing as "you have it or you don't". A few people have mental handicaps so they really can't relate to people, the rest of us can have it if we want, but it comes with a price of prolonged initial embarrassment and many don't want it quite that much.
If your formal process takes up 100+ pages then you've failed already unless you are working at a NASA-type organization with unlimited resources and where bugs simply is not an option. Not a single person in your organization is going to know what those 100+ pages say, not even supposing a single person wrote them - that guy won't remember all of it. If your entire formal process cannot be reasonably explained in 5 minutes, and gone over in complete detail in an hour, then you don't have a formal process. What you've got is a mish-mash of pieces of a process where some bits are not followed correctly and some bits are ignored because no one remembers. Monstrosity 100+ page processes only exist because someone is too incompetent to know the consequences of their decisions on process, or worse they are competent and their goal is to have enough process that no one can be 100% in compliance with the process. Then when something goes wrong, they can accuse someone of failing to follow the process. There is also the rare third option of really having a project that simply must not have any bugs and where the immense resources required to achieve that are fully provided - that is rare indeed.
It's the kind of situation that the bounty hunter Boba Fett might encounter, and indeed it is a bounty hunter quest. Bounty hunter is one of the classes you can play on the empire side. There are 8 classes in all, and the only one of them that is not based on an iconic character from the original movies is the Imperial Agent. He is more of a James Bond type of guy. I called the OP out because he was criticizing TOR for it's story, which is perhaps the one element of this game that is doubtlessly very well made. The rest may or may not be - it remains to be seen, though previews are generally favorable. The one glaring issue is that no information has come out about the end-game yet, which is kind of important to an MMO.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the OP, but I gotta say, putting atheist "arguments" in scare quotes pretty much sums up how much of a thoughtful discussion you are able to have.
The bridge inspector should only be held accountable if he failed to carry out his work according to minimum standards of bridge inspecting, which I'm sure are laid out in detail somewhere. The same should be true for earthquake predictors, but since earthquake prediction is much less of a sure thing than bridge inspection, the minimum standards are much lower as well. It's not relevant if the statement they made was true, it is relevant if the statement they made was reasonably justified based on minimum standards of earthquake prediction. If a bridge fails in a way that a bridge inspector is not tasked to inspect, then the bridge inspector is not at fault. The difference is that we have a very good idea about the things that make bridges fail, while we don't know how to predict earthquakes with certainty.
We agree on what you meant. To see the problem, imagine that you are sending the same message over and over again. I know that that is not what is going on here, it is only an analogy. The message you are sending has length L, while your noise has some distribution X. Then the message lengths that an attacker is going to see is going to come from the distribution L+X. The mean of L+X is going to be L plus the mean of X. The attacker already knows the mean of X from the source code. So if he can determine the mean of the distribution of the packet lengths then he can just subtract the mean of X from that to get L. Now the higher the variance of X is, the more samples the attacker will have to get to be confident that he has the right number, but that will also make some packets very long. This isn't a rigorous argument, but I hope it's clear that sending enough packets is going to reveal L, and then sending just 1 packet does reveal something about L also, even if you can make the amount of information revealed small by increasing the variance (and hence average packet length). There is a difference between secure and having side channels. E.g. SSH reveals at what time you are sending information, so SSH doesn't keep ALL of your information safe. That doesn't mean that SSH is insecure, it just means cryptography is tricky.
For one thing, particles collide (bounce off each other) while waves interfere (as when two ripples in an otherwise still pond meet).
If the padding is random you'll decrease the amount of information leaked, but there may still be enough information leaked to reconstruct some conversations. What you really need for total security from this attack is to eliminate the side-channel completely, such as by sending packets of the same size and with the same frequency no matter how much data you've actually got that needs sending. That is a form of padding too, but it is better than random.
I meant that they order by author's last name within the categories. I certainly agree that if the computer system isn't done well, then there is ample opportunity for the digital version to be far worse than a old-fashioned library. Just imagine how useful this library will be if the robotic retrieval system turns out to have frequent mechanical issues... I think a well-executed computerized library can be better than an old-fashioned library, but I grant that it's possible that the library in the story won't achieve that.
Judging by your quote, he's saying that Wikipedia is nerdy and therefore not cool.
Is the library story really better with shelves everywhere, or is that nostalgia?
I've seen two points brought up. One is that you can stumble upon other books in the same Dewey classification and/or with the same author because they will be nearby on the shelves. I have every confidence that a computer can display the books on your screen that would be around the book you are looking at in a physical library. However, a computer wouldn't do that because computers are better at finding related information than an ordering by author's last name is. The other point is that if a book isn't digitized, it's more trouble than it's worth to ask the robot to bring you a book with a mildly interesting title just to glance briefly at a random page. I'll grant the latter point, but I still prefer computers' ability to give you reviews and related titles and other information.
It is neither a particle nor a wave, so there is no "when it is a particle/when it is a wave". Instead, it is something whose behavior is like that of a particle in some ways and like that of a wave in other ways, but it is never actually a wave or a particle. It is its own thing - the analogies to waves and particles are just there to aid understanding, they are not accurate descriptions. I imagine that what is meant is that the density of the probability field (or whatever the correct term is) decreases uniformly in all directions with distance - no direction is favored over another.
Since he can't do anything else, the only way he can hide the fact that he isn't calling the shots on the situation is to pretend that the only thing he can do is actually what he wants to do. People really do that kind of thing, especially people who crave power so extremely that they do what it takes to become the political head of a country.
So paper has better search than bits? Not on the planet I'm living on.
Needs more effort.
I agree. It is very rational for each individual market participant, and sometimes it even works out well for the whole as well. The problem is that if you are investing based on your expectation of other people's expectations, then if you really are rational, you are engaging in a psychological endeavor of trying to predict people over trying to predict the value of the actual stock. Now people aren't complete morons on average, so there is going to be some correlation between value and people's expectation of value and between that and your expectation of people's expectation of value. However, you are now twice removed from value by two levels of expectation. Worse, you are not predicting a persons' expectation, you are predicting a group's expectation, and in that group every cognitive bias that people have is sure to be played out at least a little -- with a person you couldn't be sure, but with a group you can. The value of the stock is fundamentally unpredictable and not even necessarily well defined, but people's cognitive biases are very well studied over the last decade. So it can easily become a game where predicting psychology of other market participants is more important than predicting value, and then there's trouble because the market becomes divorced from reality. The trouble comes in precisely because it is rational for each market participant to focus on the important thing, and if that thing isn't real value, then the rational market participants won't focus on that.
On the other hand, if I could do my life over, I would have picked music instead of programming. One gets you laid, the other makes girls run away.
I'll give you a little tip that helps immensely: When you say that you are a computer programmer, I'm guessing right now that you have in the back of your mind that she's going to count that as a minus. That's the main problem right there. When you say you are a programmer, what should matter to you (to be attractive) is what you think about programming, not what she thinks about it. State that you are a programmer using your voice, face and body in a way that makes it clear that you are proud of being a programmer. Don't overdo it and don't say that you are proud of it, and don't try to get her to approve of you for being a programmer, just be proud of it for yourself and let that be sub-communicated when you talk about you being a programmer. Say it like it's your favorite topic of conversation and you are so happy that she brought it up (but don't go on to actually talk about it if it isn't your favorite topic)
She may try to challenge you on that by saying something like "isn't that really boring? I've always hated computers". At this point your thinking should reflect that she's being a little weird instead of thinking that she's rejection you. She's probably not rejection you, she's trying to learn if you are for real (and doing it in a rude, weird way, but oh well - let's forgive her for now). You can just respond for example "I love programming and I wouldn't want to do anything else." Say it in a good, upbeat mood as though it never occurred to you that she might have been rejecting you, or if she was, as though it never occurred to you that that might be bad or important to you. The conversation about whether programming is exciting or boring is now over - don't continue it unless she asks more about it. It's not important that you make her think that programming is exciting, it's only important that you stated that you think it is exciting and that's why you do it. And it's only important to state that if she questions it - otherwise it should just be assumed from the non-verbal way in which you said that you are a programmer. Just make sure that you can keep up a positive internal state of joy about being a programmer even if she curls up her face in disgust and starts looking around the room to avoid eye contact (won't happen, but let's suppose). She's being weird, but you forgive her, you're amused - that is all. For example in that case you might laugh and say "I get the feeling you don't like programming very much." Don't let it put you in a bad mood - she's being weird, not you. In fact, a woman who would behave like that is probably not going to ever be pleasant to be around for anyone, so she's probably not what you are looking for even for a one-night stand.
Your position is that programming is exciting to you and that's why you do it - it is no concern to you if other people don't like it (obviously don't be aggressive about that attitude - that would imply that you are concerned). But don't say that, just behave as a person who believed that 100% would behave (it helps a lot if you actually believe it). If someone told you that they hate walking, you wouldn't be self-conscious about how you are an unlovable loser for even making use of your legs, it wouldn't really be natural to defend walking, you'd just perhaps be a little amused. In interactions with women (and really people in general) it's not so much about what you do, how tall you are or anything like that. It's about what you believe and how you behave. It's not about facts, it's about the social interpretation of those facts. If you believe that women won't love you or have sex with you because you are a programmer, then they will believe it too. Now there may be other things you are doing that is unattractive to women, but just being a programmer by itself really doesn't have to be any kind of a problem unless you yourself make it one.
If you go for it all-out, functional programming will seem totally alien to you for a little while. The reason for that is that you need to relearn your vocabulary of small structures such as loops and how to change state. At some point you'll wake up and realize that once you can do the small stuff in functional programming, it's actually exactly the same as any other kind of programming at a higher level. The set of limitations and possibilities are just a little different. The main initial stumbling block to functional programming is this: you can't change variables (or anything), but you can call a function with different parameters (with x=3 instead of x=2) and that achieves the same thing. The call stack isn't limited by stack space and tail recursion is used so that you don't get in trouble with nesting function calls very deep.
It could be future earnings. It could also be the expectation that other investors are going to be willing to buy the stock for a higher price in future. I think most investing is based more on the latter and less on the former.
I wouldn't want to play any game you had designed.
It's meant to indicate the level of expense being incurred through taxes in Europe. However, since education is tax-financed it makes sense to prevent students from taking time away from their studies to wait tables - that way they will be done sooner leading to smaller education expenses and higher tax revenues from their degreed work. Having students keep an unrelated work is equivalent to exchanging later skilled labor for now selling smarties at a counter which isn't a good deal for the country. They lose the money if they work very much, and it is quite a small amount - indeed it is even significantly less than unemployment benefits. Healthcare is not the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in Europe the way it is in the US and consequently healthcare is not a concern the way it is in the US. Obviously that's not free so indeed taxes are higher in Europe which was the point being discussed.
I don't know why US government should be spectacularly less efficient than other governments. You do spend significantly more on wars, though. I don't know of any country in the world where the taxes aren't made hard to see by having many smaller taxes rather than just income tax and sales tax. It's not an American thing.
Yet in some European countries the roads are in good condition, there are no beggars on the streets (or elsewhere), education up to university level is provided by the state, students are actually given a modest salary for studying and healthcare is provided by the state. Americans are paying very little taxes compared to that, and you also receive not much service from the state as a result. Did you know that gasoline is half the price in the US than it is in some European countries and cars are one third the price? Sales taxes are 25% in some countries and you can be paying more than 50% in income tax.
That's terrible because there's no telling what your possibly insane or manipulative daughter is going to perceive as harassment and there is no telling either what her possibly insane, aggressive or just plain bored friends are going to perceive as a call to go beat up some random hapless guy. Once we are down with group beat-downs being acceptable, how are you going to prevent your group of vigilante misfits from beating up anyone they don't like and who don't have enough standing in the community to create some back-lash? In fact, it seems you are exactly asking to have a group of (by definition) criminals who beat up people they don't like. What a wonderful world we'll have when that guy's relatives take your advice and go beat your daughter and her friends senseless too. There is no place for your views in a civilized society.
It's not that people feel icky around those who try to be likable. What feels icky is someone who is trying to be likable but who isn't very good at it yet. Once you get good at it, you'll be perceived as just likable without the ickiness. The problem is not trying, the problem is trying without already having the skills. How do you get the skills? By trying and failing many times. At that point you can stop thinking about it and people won't know how you got there. Except you'll only get there if you've tried before often enough to have gotten good at it. You won't get to that point without really, really wanting it, and geeks don't - not to the level that other people do. The people you think never tried yet are good at it are people who wanted it badly enough when they were younger and you didn't know them then or wouldn't have perceived what they were doing as trying at that age so you don't remember. There is no such thing as "you have it or you don't". A few people have mental handicaps so they really can't relate to people, the rest of us can have it if we want, but it comes with a price of prolonged initial embarrassment and many don't want it quite that much.
If your formal process takes up 100+ pages then you've failed already unless you are working at a NASA-type organization with unlimited resources and where bugs simply is not an option. Not a single person in your organization is going to know what those 100+ pages say, not even supposing a single person wrote them - that guy won't remember all of it. If your entire formal process cannot be reasonably explained in 5 minutes, and gone over in complete detail in an hour, then you don't have a formal process. What you've got is a mish-mash of pieces of a process where some bits are not followed correctly and some bits are ignored because no one remembers. Monstrosity 100+ page processes only exist because someone is too incompetent to know the consequences of their decisions on process, or worse they are competent and their goal is to have enough process that no one can be 100% in compliance with the process. Then when something goes wrong, they can accuse someone of failing to follow the process. There is also the rare third option of really having a project that simply must not have any bugs and where the immense resources required to achieve that are fully provided - that is rare indeed.
It's the kind of situation that the bounty hunter Boba Fett might encounter, and indeed it is a bounty hunter quest. Bounty hunter is one of the classes you can play on the empire side. There are 8 classes in all, and the only one of them that is not based on an iconic character from the original movies is the Imperial Agent. He is more of a James Bond type of guy. I called the OP out because he was criticizing TOR for it's story, which is perhaps the one element of this game that is doubtlessly very well made. The rest may or may not be - it remains to be seen, though previews are generally favorable. The one glaring issue is that no information has come out about the end-game yet, which is kind of important to an MMO.