I'm reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago in a Circuit City or Sears or someplace. I was looking for a radar detector for my car. The salesman was trying to upsell and said "You know, cops can detect radar detectors now, so you should get this upgrade with a radar-detector detector." I said, "Why do I want a radar-detector detector? Obviously I want a radar-detector-detector detector." The salesguy did not appreciate my point. I ended up just buying my original level of detection.
I totally agree. Every single scientific article reporting "A linked with B" gets this ridiculous tag. Almost no scientist every says "A causes B" because they obviously already understand that correlation does not imply correlation. However, correlation also does not imply "not causation." Any reputable scientist and journal will report results of the form "Here is the data. A appears to be statistically linked with B. Here are several hypotheses as to why, however these are speculative and require further study."
Furthermore, causality is something that a lot of very smart statisticians do spend a lot of time studying. It's not inconceivable that in the future people will be able to make concrete statistical statements about causality with confidence intervals and the works. What will the mantra be then?
Anyway, correlation's not *that* good of a measure of (interesting and nonlinear) dependence between (non-Gaussian) variables anyway. Mutual information is the ticket.
In this case, it's "defer all the annoying repetitive grind until the endgame", rather than forcing you to do it during the leveling process. Wait, "kill 10 bears" then "kill 10 scorpions" then "find 10 doodads" ad nauseum in order to get from level 23 to level 24 is not the "annoying repetitive grind"? Sheesh, I'm glad I quit playing at level 40. Everybody kept saying "wait until the endgame, then it gets fun."
To tell you the truth, I really see this as moving to the right, in order to set herself up better for the presidential run. The Democrat/Republican divide these days has less to do with legislative intervention and more to do with "family values," whatever that means.
If you're Karl Rove, planning the 2008 election, you want to go after Hillary on her ethics and her family values. You want to neutralize her female base by making her appear to not care about family and good parenting. This is a calculated move by Hillary to move to the *right* on this issue, not the left. It doesn't matter who she blames, it matters that she's in the papers sticking up for some kind of "family value."
I blogged about this here, but this is all about the 2008 US presidential election. Hillary Clinton knows that if she wins the primary, her Republican opponent will attack her on family values. She's positioning herself as a centrist, value-driven candidate (along with her support of the war in Iraq) to take the bullets out of her future opponent's gun. This has absolutely nothing to do with video games. It is all about pouncing on an easy issue.
How does this "dim the magic" for anyone? If you *didn't* download it, does your experience in the theater suffer somehow? You do actually have a choice about whether or not to download it...
Also, didn't the movie leak from the studio itself originally?
Tracking, unfortunately, won't keep your dog from getting hit by a car. It also won't keep you legal if unleashed dogs are against the law (which is quite common in the US, anyway). I would consider an "invisible fence" which is basically an RF proximity sensor on a collar that shocks the dog if it gets too close. They seem to be quite effective and can give the dog a very large area in which to roam. In particular, it makes sense in situations where a backyard-type fence is impractical (such as on a farm), but a border is well-defined by a cattle fence or some such.
Here's the cursory google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dog+invisible +fence&btnG=Google+Search
Agreed, but the US government should be asking itself whether it can afford to have that breakthrough happen somewhere else. It is extremely foolish (and yet commonplace) to think that Americans have a monopoly on innovation.
Henry Ford (paraphrased, in reference to the Model T): You can have any color you want, as long as it's black.
Your Boss: You can show up anytime you want, as long as it's at 7:30.
Re:their SE course sucks
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
Looking at the 2.009 website it looks like they have $6000 per team (with 16 people per team), so I was overstating the difference. But I don't think the alums are footing the bill. GM, Ford, United Technologies and the Lemelson Foundation sponsor it, according to the site.
Re:their SE course sucks
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
I may be wrong, because I was Course VI and have no firsthand knowledge, but I think this is now 2.009, with groups of 10-12 and a budget more like $10,000. They build some pretty killer stuff in that class, on occasion.
Re:They have more than one Software Engineering co
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
I agree that this was an extremely valuable class. Case studies in how and how not to design software systems. I think the reason it is not on OCW is almost certainly because they reprint a very large number of copyrighted papers - with permission of course. I seriously doubt that they have redistribution rights for most of them. The papers that we read in the course and the discussions we had in recitation (full professors ran recitation, which was wonderful) was where ALL of the value was. We even had to use our MIT SSL Student Certificates to access most of the papers on the website.
Ok, I buy that, but it would seem that the watershed for the Aral Sea would be rather large. Is it plausible that the evaporated water would escape it before it rained back down again? That's not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious how far it would go...
A lot is made of the "leaky irrigation" and such, but that makes no sense. Is the irrigation surrounding the rivers taking the water out of the sea's watershed? Seems unlikely. The water would just eventually run back into the river and the sea. I mean, how is water leaking from a poorly-built irrigation system different from the rain that falls right next to it and feeds the rivers and the sea to begin with? This reeks of sensationalism. There may be a real environmental problem here, but "leaky irrigation" is a red herring.
I don't know about other models, but until I dropped it and broke the screen after 3+ years, I was very happy running Red Hat, then Debian and then Gentoo on my Vaio PCG-XG9. I found support for pretty much everything but the WinModem. A single anecdote does not a dataset make, but hey, you asked "Have you *EVER* tried..." and yes, I have. Successfully.
While I understand your point, this is unfortunately not entirely accurate. I suggest reading Ken Thompson's Turing Award Lecture for an explanation of exactly why having the source code is not necessarily enough. I don't think the scenario he describes is a likely one, but it's worth looking at and thinking about in any case.
I'm not sure what the shavings will be made out of, but you might consider placing a small magnet right next to where you are drilling so that the shavings will stick to it, rather than falling down into recesses in the board. Might work or it might not. Just a suggestion.
I suggest reading the original research paper. It gives a very nice overview of how it actually works. It is very clever, but it is not magic. Mostly, they managed to come up with an approach that is very robust against manipulation, even if the would-be manipulators were aware of the internals.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago in a Circuit City or Sears or someplace. I was looking for a radar detector for my car. The salesman was trying to upsell and said "You know, cops can detect radar detectors now, so you should get this upgrade with a radar-detector detector." I said, "Why do I want a radar-detector detector? Obviously I want a radar-detector-detector detector." The salesguy did not appreciate my point. I ended up just buying my original level of detection.
No, they can't do this because it violates MY patent on patenting patent trolling!
I totally agree. Every single scientific article reporting "A linked with B" gets this ridiculous tag. Almost no scientist every says "A causes B" because they obviously already understand that correlation does not imply correlation. However, correlation also does not imply "not causation." Any reputable scientist and journal will report results of the form "Here is the data. A appears to be statistically linked with B. Here are several hypotheses as to why, however these are speculative and require further study."
Furthermore, causality is something that a lot of very smart statisticians do spend a lot of time studying. It's not inconceivable that in the future people will be able to make concrete statistical statements about causality with confidence intervals and the works. What will the mantra be then?
Anyway, correlation's not *that* good of a measure of (interesting and nonlinear) dependence between (non-Gaussian) variables anyway. Mutual information is the ticket.
Ok, done with my rant.
Just so you know, neither the gibbon nor the bonobo is actually a monkey. They are apes.
Wow, good call. My bad. I think I edited that sentence a few too many times...
And the winner is... "Making Top Ten Lists of Game Cliches"!
(Disclosure: this joke is already half-made in the article.)
If you're Karl Rove, planning the 2008 election, you want to go after Hillary on her ethics and her family values. You want to neutralize her female base by making her appear to not care about family and good parenting. This is a calculated move by Hillary to move to the *right* on this issue, not the left. It doesn't matter who she blames, it matters that she's in the papers sticking up for some kind of "family value."
(I blogged about this here.)
I blogged about this here, but this is all about the 2008 US presidential election. Hillary Clinton knows that if she wins the primary, her Republican opponent will attack her on family values. She's positioning herself as a centrist, value-driven candidate (along with her support of the war in Iraq) to take the bullets out of her future opponent's gun. This has absolutely nothing to do with video games. It is all about pouncing on an easy issue.
How does this "dim the magic" for anyone? If you *didn't* download it, does your experience in the theater suffer somehow? You do actually have a choice about whether or not to download it... Also, didn't the movie leak from the studio itself originally?
Tracking, unfortunately, won't keep your dog from getting hit by a car. It also won't keep you legal if unleashed dogs are against the law (which is quite common in the US, anyway). I would consider an "invisible fence" which is basically an RF proximity sensor on a collar that shocks the dog if it gets too close. They seem to be quite effective and can give the dog a very large area in which to roam. In particular, it makes sense in situations where a backyard-type fence is impractical (such as on a farm), but a border is well-defined by a cattle fence or some such. Here's the cursory google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dog+invisible +fence&btnG=Google+Search
Agreed, but the US government should be asking itself whether it can afford to have that breakthrough happen somewhere else. It is extremely foolish (and yet commonplace) to think that Americans have a monopoly on innovation.
Thanks for the link - I just donated $25.
Henry Ford (paraphrased, in reference to the Model T): You can have any color you want, as long as it's black.
Your Boss: You can show up anytime you want, as long as it's at 7:30.
Looking at the 2.009 website it looks like they have $6000 per team (with 16 people per team), so I was overstating the difference. But I don't think the alums are footing the bill. GM, Ford, United Technologies and the Lemelson Foundation sponsor it, according to the site.
I may be wrong, because I was Course VI and have no firsthand knowledge, but I think this is now 2.009, with groups of 10-12 and a budget more like $10,000. They build some pretty killer stuff in that class, on occasion.
I agree that this was an extremely valuable class. Case studies in how and how not to design software systems. I think the reason it is not on OCW is almost certainly because they reprint a very large number of copyrighted papers - with permission of course. I seriously doubt that they have redistribution rights for most of them. The papers that we read in the course and the discussions we had in recitation (full professors ran recitation, which was wonderful) was where ALL of the value was. We even had to use our MIT SSL Student Certificates to access most of the papers on the website.
Ok, I buy that, but it would seem that the watershed for the Aral Sea would be rather large. Is it plausible that the evaporated water would escape it before it rained back down again? That's not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious how far it would go...
A lot is made of the "leaky irrigation" and such, but that makes no sense. Is the irrigation surrounding the rivers taking the water out of the sea's watershed? Seems unlikely. The water would just eventually run back into the river and the sea. I mean, how is water leaking from a poorly-built irrigation system different from the rain that falls right next to it and feeds the rivers and the sea to begin with? This reeks of sensationalism. There may be a real environmental problem here, but "leaky irrigation" is a red herring.
I don't know about other models, but until I dropped it and broke the screen after 3+ years, I was very happy running Red Hat, then Debian and then Gentoo on my Vaio PCG-XG9. I found support for pretty much everything but the WinModem. A single anecdote does not a dataset make, but hey, you asked "Have you *EVER* tried..." and yes, I have. Successfully.
While I understand your point, this is unfortunately not entirely accurate. I suggest reading Ken Thompson's Turing Award Lecture for an explanation of exactly why having the source code is not necessarily enough. I don't think the scenario he describes is a likely one, but it's worth looking at and thinking about in any case.
I'm not sure what the shavings will be made out of, but you might consider placing a small magnet right next to where you are drilling so that the shavings will stick to it, rather than falling down into recesses in the board. Might work or it might not. Just a suggestion.
I suggest reading the original research paper. It gives a very nice overview of how it actually works. It is very clever, but it is not magic. Mostly, they managed to come up with an approach that is very robust against manipulation, even if the would-be manipulators were aware of the internals.
There is no need to hypothesize conspiracy.
GET
Someone always seems to be trying to run shell commands on my Apache server. I wish they would realize that Apache doesn't have this "shell" feature.
Seriously, though, this is the most hideously insecure thing I have ever heard of.