I'm fine with this as long as i get to be king, or at least a vassal lord.
My promises are: free housing and food to fit your needs as I perceive them, 100% guaranteed right to full employment with payed overtime in the form of free housing and food. (Payments are subject to force majure due to unforseen events such as war, uprisings or me being unusually greedy). You have the right to chose between one or more choices of spouse that my expert match makers will provide for you. Together the two of you will have the right and duty to have as many children as I deem appropriate. Any children above the limit will receive 100% free child care and 100% free education with a guaranteed 10-year internship at an appropriate workplace between the age of 8 and 18.
As a sign of my gratitude to my loyal subjects I promise no more than 1 hour of torture per year on average over any 50-year period. (Torture limit void if I think you may actually be guilty of something that I don't approve of).
"today most engineers need at least 1GHz to get by in digital design"
Can you back that up? I think you are lying. What percentage of digital design engineers do 1+ GHz stuff? I would say the majority work with micro controllers with signals in the 1-50 MHz range. Sure, a 1 GHz scope is wonderful but you most definitely don't need it.
The number on the box is the sampling rate. As you may know Nyquist-Shannon says divide that by two to get the highest frequency you can capture, and that is if you're looking at a perfect sine.
If you're looking at a digital signal then one rule of thumb says divide by ten. So if you're playing around with 50 MHz digital signals you'll want a 500 MHz scope in order to see the ones and zeros in all (or some of) their noisy glory.
If your micro controller is sitting on a board that is known to work reliably and all you're doing is writing code for the micro then you don't really need an oscilloscope. A simple logic analyzer will do fine.
No, postmodernist cuisine would be all about mixing different food traditions, but referring to it with fancy sounding words like "fusion" or "referencing" or "sampling" or maybe even "modding". In other words, it's basically what a lot of restaurants do today.
Exactly. These are our governments. Stop trying to fight them and start fixing the governments themselves. Next election ask the candidates repeatedly "what measures are you taking to make the government more transparent? Do you promise to pass a law making all secret warrants illegal? How can you convince us 100% that you will keep your promises?"
That's not going to work.
This might work: Gather plenty of like-minded people and go to the politician's office tomorrow and demand the answer to those questions right away. Then do the same thing again and again until they pass acceptable laws and regulations. If the politician stops showing up at work; go to their house instead.
But this book is more about presenting pretentious culinary "culture" that uses lots of technology as if it were "science." That's not science. It's just somebody's wacky cooking vision. I'm not saying the food is bad, but claiming that their approach is "better" is rarely backed up by any data... therefore, it's hardly "scientific."
Then it truly is modernist cuisine. At least the book is aptly named.
How cutely naive! If a programming language costs money and relies on remote servers you expect corporate snooping to decrease? I think hell would freeze over first.
I did not say that.
If you have two programming languages that depend on remote servers, one that's free is in gratis and one that has fees I would expect the one that has fees to value and respect your privacy more than the one that is free.
If the programming language relies on remote servers (basically Wolfram Alpha) in order to function it would make sense that it would cost money. It costs money to hire people to make and improve a system like Wolfram Alpha.
If people got over the idea of having everything on their computers for free the world would have a lot less corporate snooping and a lot less ad spamming. That would be nice.
Well, I live in Sweden and the tax authority here is still scratching its head as far as I know. The tax is certainly 30% like on any capital gain. The big question is if that is 30% on your net profit when you withdraw money from the market to your bank account, or if it is 30% each time you sell BTC at a market. If it's the latter I and pretty much everyone else in Sweden who has traded BTC have already committed tax fraud (not that the authorities would care about $133 in my case).
Anyway if you ask me it makes no sense to sell now. This Bitcoin bubble is the first one for which non-nerds are prepared, which means that there could be billions of dollars on their way into the market over the next few weeks, before it crashes. I would not be surprised if this bubble peaks at over $2000.
That.33333BTC is real money now. You might want to move it somewhere more secure, or convert it to cash before the bubble bursts.
The chore of figuring out how and where to put it on my tax form is not worth $133. Maybe if was $1333.
But then I'd miss the thrill in trying to wait until the last moment before the crash happens and the servers go down. I nailed it by about 6 hours margin last time, but then I waited much to long to reenter the market so I only gained 50%. I thought it would bottom out at about $15 then, but it bottomed out at $40 or something like that.
Yup, and houses are precious too! You can't make more land! Oh, I better jump onto the bubble as it crests! I can see all the way to... ugh don't look down, just don't look down.... Oh no, I just looked down. The difference is houses can have SOME value to you personally even when its externally useless, and BitCoins are literally bits on your computer.
My one third of a BTC is bits on Mt:Gox's servers, that is assuming they're not doing fractional reserve banking yet. I don't think I'm much different from the average BTC owner.
As always I would advice against investing significant amounts of real money in BTC. If you want to invest real cash, at least invest in a basket of several virtual currencies and do it across several trade sites.
The feature where they could turn your phone into a surveillance bug probably relied on software bugs or security holes in the firmwares of certain phone models. It's just impossible for the average user to know if their phone was secure or not. Who knows what the capabilities are today with iOS and Android and current phone models?
Yeah, I'm surprised anyone thinks this is news. It's been like this since the days of the grayscale Nokia phones. A phone that is turned of can still be located by the cell towers and it can in some cases be remotely turned on and used as a listening device. Back then security experts advised to remove the battery before you discussed secrets in a corporate or government setting, in order to avoid falling victim to espionage.
I guess it's just not very practical to follow that advice. Some government agencies and some corporations have probably installed jammers or shielding around certain meeting rooms in order to keep top meetings secure.
"Religion does not cause poverty and misery." telling people to keep copulating and having children or they won't get a place in their heaven causes a lot of poverty and misery.
Well, yes, but only if people listen. People only seem listen to religion's "advice" about family planning or the lack thereof in countries where there is no pension system and women aren't allowed into the work force, which pretty much means that the pension system is giving birth to at least two sons who can provide for you when you are too old to work.
The usual retort to that is that it's reversing cause and effect.
Religion does not cause poverty and misery. It's wealth and happiness that leads to secularism, agnosticism, atheism and the sort of bland and bloodless liberal theism which for most practical purposes is functionally equivalent to atheism or agnosticism.
I've read that there has been a change in how drug-related crime is sentenced. Swedish judges and lay judges in the lowest courts (Tingsrätt) are increasingly sentencing drug-related criminals to parole instead of prison and shorter prison terms instead of longer ones. Apparently nobody knows why they are doing this, including the judges and lay judges themselves.
In any case, this could potentially explain why the prisons are emptying out, but the cumulative effect on the size of the prison population has not been quantified by anyone. Research needed.
Apple's star team of designers and engineers has rethought the whole concept of the phone screen from the ground up and designed a completely new metacarpal retina display that gives the user a profound and natural experience, as the screen follows the natural motion of your thumb and responds to your touch in a way that's completely superior to previous flimsy attempts at curved screens by lesser companies.
I saw the movie a few years after it came out, and that's exactly what I thought. The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
It's probably a lot easier to spot after having listened to Bush 2 and Obama saying things like 'you're either with us or against us' or 'we need a strong economy in order to have a strong military'. Statements like those were almost unthinkable before 9/11. Bush even ran his first campaign on promises of demilitarization and moving back forces to the homeland.
Well, here in Sweedeen wee like to burn things for elektricity and heet...
Maybe you can send us some of your jellyfish? Preferably dried. Uh, and don't ask me how you'll dry thousands of tonnes of jellyfish in a reasonably environmentally sound manner.
What about feeding people indirectly y first feeding the jellyfish to some animal that humans eat? Could jellyfish be made into feed for salmon or other fish farm fish species and if so, what effect would that have on the nutritional contents of the farmed fish?
I read stuff at twitter almost everyday and I don't even have a personal account.
Twitter is more of a broadcast medium than a social network anyway. Most of the most popular accounts are run by celebrities or "stars" in their fields. It seems likely that the number of active users will shrink while those that are active will become more relevant and drive more traffic to the inevitable ads that they will eventually have to add to the site once investors start to ask for profits.
Nobody is suggesting allowing errors everywhere. Errors will only be allowed where they wouldn't cause massive unexpected effects.
A simple (self-driving) car analogy here would be that you might allow the lights to flicker a little if that saves power. You might even allow the steering wheel to move very slightly at random in order to save power as long as it never causes the car to spin out of control, but you would never allow even a small chance that the car would select its destination at random.
Yes, before we make (implicit) claims about nuclear being able to scale, maybe we should prove that we can decommission the 300 or so ones that are due to close over the next two decades.
Next problem: while doing that, build 150 new plants (each twice as powerful) to replace the ones going out of service.
Next problem: while doing all of the above, build more plants, i.e. the actual scaling...
Meanwhile the amount of installed PV capacity on the planet is doubling each two years on average. Those are probably also going to be a recycling nightmare, but at least they allow us to kick the can another 30 years down the proverbial road.
It's not completely unreasonable if it's done on a per-time basis...
Suppose that A is known to be a highly skilled and productive employee and A spends a lot of time talking, texting etc with B, who works for the same company. It seems to me that there are a few likely possibilities:
1) A is B's boss 2) B is A's boss 3) A and B are friends 4) A and B are having sex 5) A is working with B because A thinks B is a skilled or productive person
It should be fairly easy to rule out (1) and (2) using publicly available data. (3) and (4) are harder to rule out, but it might be possible to make a guess based on what time of day the interaction takes place. That then leaves (5) as the most likely explanation for the interaction.
Another way to do this would be to ask A what he thinks of B, but let's not get crazy!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fine with this as long as i get to be king, or at least a vassal lord.
My promises are: free housing and food to fit your needs as I perceive them, 100% guaranteed right to full employment with payed overtime in the form of free housing and food. (Payments are subject to force majure due to unforseen events such as war, uprisings or me being unusually greedy). You have the right to chose between one or more choices of spouse that my expert match makers will provide for you. Together the two of you will have the right and duty to have as many children as I deem appropriate. Any children above the limit will receive 100% free child care and 100% free education with a guaranteed 10-year internship at an appropriate workplace between the age of 8 and 18.
As a sign of my gratitude to my loyal subjects I promise no more than 1 hour of torture per year on average over any 50-year period. (Torture limit void if I think you may actually be guilty of something that I don't approve of).
"today most engineers need at least 1GHz to get by in digital design"
Can you back that up? I think you are lying. What percentage of digital design engineers do 1+ GHz stuff? I would say the majority work with micro controllers with signals in the 1-50 MHz range. Sure, a 1 GHz scope is wonderful but you most definitely don't need it.
The number on the box is the sampling rate. As you may know Nyquist-Shannon says divide that by two to get the highest frequency you can capture, and that is if you're looking at a perfect sine.
If you're looking at a digital signal then one rule of thumb says divide by ten. So if you're playing around with 50 MHz digital signals you'll want a 500 MHz scope in order to see the ones and zeros in all (or some of) their noisy glory.
If your micro controller is sitting on a board that is known to work reliably and all you're doing is writing code for the micro then you don't really need an oscilloscope. A simple logic analyzer will do fine.
No, postmodernist cuisine would be all about mixing different food traditions, but referring to it with fancy sounding words like "fusion" or "referencing" or "sampling" or maybe even "modding". In other words, it's basically what a lot of restaurants do today.
Exactly. These are our governments. Stop trying to fight them and start fixing the governments themselves. Next election ask the candidates repeatedly "what measures are you taking to make the government more transparent? Do you promise to pass a law making all secret warrants illegal? How can you convince us 100% that you will keep your promises?"
That's not going to work.
This might work: Gather plenty of like-minded people and go to the politician's office tomorrow and demand the answer to those questions right away. Then do the same thing again and again until they pass acceptable laws and regulations. If the politician stops showing up at work; go to their house instead.
But this book is more about presenting pretentious culinary "culture" that uses lots of technology as if it were "science." That's not science. It's just somebody's wacky cooking vision. I'm not saying the food is bad, but claiming that their approach is "better" is rarely backed up by any data... therefore, it's hardly "scientific."
Then it truly is modernist cuisine. At least the book is aptly named.
How cutely naive! If a programming language costs money and relies on remote servers you expect corporate snooping to decrease? I think hell would freeze over first.
I did not say that.
If you have two programming languages that depend on remote servers, one that's free is in gratis and one that has fees I would expect the one that has fees to value and respect your privacy more than the one that is free.
No it hasn't, but there was a 25-year period in the mid-1900's when the temperature dropped significantly, which disproves global warming.
Post may contain traces of sarcasm.
If the programming language relies on remote servers (basically Wolfram Alpha) in order to function it would make sense that it would cost money. It costs money to hire people to make and improve a system like Wolfram Alpha.
If people got over the idea of having everything on their computers for free the world would have a lot less corporate snooping and a lot less ad spamming. That would be nice.
Well, I live in Sweden and the tax authority here is still scratching its head as far as I know. The tax is certainly 30% like on any capital gain. The big question is if that is 30% on your net profit when you withdraw money from the market to your bank account, or if it is 30% each time you sell BTC at a market. If it's the latter I and pretty much everyone else in Sweden who has traded BTC have already committed tax fraud (not that the authorities would care about $133 in my case).
Anyway if you ask me it makes no sense to sell now. This Bitcoin bubble is the first one for which non-nerds are prepared, which means that there could be billions of dollars on their way into the market over the next few weeks, before it crashes. I would not be surprised if this bubble peaks at over $2000.
That .33333BTC is real money now. You might want to move it somewhere more secure, or convert it to cash before the bubble bursts.
The chore of figuring out how and where to put it on my tax form is not worth $133. Maybe if was $1333.
But then I'd miss the thrill in trying to wait until the last moment before the crash happens and the servers go down. I nailed it by about 6 hours margin last time, but then I waited much to long to reenter the market so I only gained 50%. I thought it would bottom out at about $15 then, but it bottomed out at $40 or something like that.
Yup, and houses are precious too! You can't make more land! Oh, I better jump onto the bubble as it crests! I can see all the way to ... ugh don't look down, just don't look down.... Oh no, I just looked down. The difference is houses can have SOME value to you personally even when its externally useless, and BitCoins are literally bits on your computer.
My one third of a BTC is bits on Mt:Gox's servers, that is assuming they're not doing fractional reserve banking yet. I don't think I'm much different from the average BTC owner.
As always I would advice against investing significant amounts of real money in BTC. If you want to invest real cash, at least invest in a basket of several virtual currencies and do it across several trade sites.
Here's a news story from 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html
The feature where they could turn your phone into a surveillance bug probably relied on software bugs or security holes in the firmwares of certain phone models. It's just impossible for the average user to know if their phone was secure or not. Who knows what the capabilities are today with iOS and Android and current phone models?
Yeah, I'm surprised anyone thinks this is news. It's been like this since the days of the grayscale Nokia phones. A phone that is turned of can still be located by the cell towers and it can in some cases be remotely turned on and used as a listening device. Back then security experts advised to remove the battery before you discussed secrets in a corporate or government setting, in order to avoid falling victim to espionage.
I guess it's just not very practical to follow that advice. Some government agencies and some corporations have probably installed jammers or shielding around certain meeting rooms in order to keep top meetings secure.
"Religion does not cause poverty and misery."
telling people to keep copulating and having children or they won't get a place in their heaven causes a lot of poverty and misery.
Well, yes, but only if people listen. People only seem listen to religion's "advice" about family planning or the lack thereof in countries where there is no pension system and women aren't allowed into the work force, which pretty much means that the pension system is giving birth to at least two sons who can provide for you when you are too old to work.
The usual retort to that is that it's reversing cause and effect.
Religion does not cause poverty and misery. It's wealth and happiness that leads to secularism, agnosticism, atheism and the sort of bland and bloodless liberal theism which for most practical purposes is functionally equivalent to atheism or agnosticism.
I've read that there has been a change in how drug-related crime is sentenced. Swedish judges and lay judges in the lowest courts (Tingsrätt) are increasingly sentencing drug-related criminals to parole instead of prison and shorter prison terms instead of longer ones. Apparently nobody knows why they are doing this, including the judges and lay judges themselves.
In any case, this could potentially explain why the prisons are emptying out, but the cumulative effect on the size of the prison population has not been quantified by anyone. Research needed.
Apple's star team of designers and engineers has rethought the whole concept of the phone screen from the ground up and designed a completely new metacarpal retina display that gives the user a profound and natural experience, as the screen follows the natural motion of your thumb and responds to your touch in a way that's completely superior to previous flimsy attempts at curved screens by lesser companies.
I saw the movie a few years after it came out, and that's exactly what I thought. The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
It's probably a lot easier to spot after having listened to Bush 2 and Obama saying things like 'you're either with us or against us' or 'we need a strong economy in order to have a strong military'. Statements like those were almost unthinkable before 9/11. Bush even ran his first campaign on promises of demilitarization and moving back forces to the homeland.
Oh and it might be possible to turn wet jellyfish into methane, which is a good vehicle fuel.
Well, here in Sweedeen wee like to burn things for elektricity and heet...
Maybe you can send us some of your jellyfish? Preferably dried. Uh, and don't ask me how you'll dry thousands of tonnes of jellyfish in a reasonably environmentally sound manner.
What about feeding people indirectly y first feeding the jellyfish to some animal that humans eat? Could jellyfish be made into feed for salmon or other fish farm fish species and if so, what effect would that have on the nutritional contents of the farmed fish?
I read stuff at twitter almost everyday and I don't even have a personal account.
Twitter is more of a broadcast medium than a social network anyway. Most of the most popular accounts are run by celebrities or "stars" in their fields. It seems likely that the number of active users will shrink while those that are active will become more relevant and drive more traffic to the inevitable ads that they will eventually have to add to the site once investors start to ask for profits.
Nobody is suggesting allowing errors everywhere. Errors will only be allowed where they wouldn't cause massive unexpected effects.
A simple (self-driving) car analogy here would be that you might allow the lights to flicker a little if that saves power. You might even allow the steering wheel to move very slightly at random in order to save power as long as it never causes the car to spin out of control, but you would never allow even a small chance that the car would select its destination at random.
Yes, before we make (implicit) claims about nuclear being able to scale, maybe we should prove that we can decommission the 300 or so ones that are due to close over the next two decades.
Next problem: while doing that, build 150 new plants (each twice as powerful) to replace the ones going out of service.
Next problem: while doing all of the above, build more plants, i.e. the actual scaling...
Meanwhile the amount of installed PV capacity on the planet is doubling each two years on average. Those are probably also going to be a recycling nightmare, but at least they allow us to kick the can another 30 years down the proverbial road.
It's not completely unreasonable if it's done on a per-time basis...
Suppose that A is known to be a highly skilled and productive employee and A spends a lot of time talking, texting etc with B, who works for the same company. It seems to me that there are a few likely possibilities:
1) A is B's boss
2) B is A's boss
3) A and B are friends
4) A and B are having sex
5) A is working with B because A thinks B is a skilled or productive person
It should be fairly easy to rule out (1) and (2) using publicly available data. (3) and (4) are harder to rule out, but it might be possible to make a guess based on what time of day the interaction takes place. That then leaves (5) as the most likely explanation for the interaction.
Another way to do this would be to ask A what he thinks of B, but let's not get crazy!