Don't bother forwarding it to me. MS Word docs I cannot open will go into the circular file along with all the other spam.
Hmmm... Speaking of which. I think I've got Open Office here somewhere. Correction: MS Word docs will go into the circular file along with all the other spam.
"I think they are saying that most outcomes have been accounted for, and unless some weird gravitational property occurs, it will miss."
You were doing well until you got to this statement. It doesn't have anything to do with weird gravitational properties. It's just that what you don't know might kill you.
They've looked into the sky. They see a rock. The rock is travelling in a general direction such that it might hit the earth in the future. We don't know the direction exactly. Therefore we don't know whether it will actually hit.
They'll have a better handle on the exact direction after taking more measurements.
Whatever... Probability per se is completely a posteri, and is determined by computing the frequency of occurance of a given outcome over a set of events. If the set of events contains only one member then the probability of a given outcome is either 0 or 1 depending upon whether that outcome resulted or not. As you take sets of larger cardinality the probability of an event takes on different values between 0 and 1 depending upon how many times the result actually happened for the set of events.
So... This rock is a single event, and as such the probability of that specific rock hitting the earth is either 0 or 1 depending upon whether the rock does in fact hit the earth or not. The only way to have some probability other than 0 or 1 is to throw more rocks at the Earth and find out how many of them actually hit the Earth. Then you take the number of rocks which hit and divide it by the number thrown.
What they are doing here (only very approximately) is pretending to throw rocks at the earth with a specific range of orbital characteristics and computing how many of them would have hit the earth. Since celestial mechanics is deterministic they can do this with a high degree of confidence. Only the unknowns in the current trajectory and mass of the rock effect the computation. They are computing an a priori most likely a postori probability if there was a large number of samples.
Probability is an empirical science, not an axiomatic one.
I think computing paint would better serve the purpose. When will I be able to just paint a monitor onto my wall? (And I bet the fumes will be carinogenic.)
"Only for a uselessly narrow definition of "probability"."
Nope. With a fair coin it is proper to talk of the probability being 50:50. The difference between a fair coin and celestial mechanics is that with a fair coin it is not possible to define an experiment which will determine the result in advance. In celestial mechanics it is not only possible, but very straight forward. The experiments will in fact be done, and that is the reason the "probability" will change over time before the date of potential collision.
The thing is that real probabilistic analysis is used in computing the pseudo-probability which is the odds 909,000:1. Taking the information at hand, they compute a volume of space through which both the rock and the Earth might pass through during the given time and then compute the probability of them both being at the same place at the same time within that volume. As the quality of the information improves the volume decreases and the pseudo-probability more accurately approximates the actual probability. The odds either get extremely large or closer and closer to 1:1. (I'm being sloppy here, and not talking about gradients. A real analysis would have different probabilities of being within different parts of an infinite volume.)
On the other hand, this is in fact boringly technical. Pseudo-probabilities are very useful, and it is only natural to call them probabilities in normal conversation. You only have to worry about the difference when actually computing the pseudo-probabilities.
The odds are all about uncertainty, but they are only expressed as a probability. The actual probability is either 0 or 1, but given our uncertainty we only know the actual probability with enough accuracy to say that the odds are 909,000 to 1.
(Unlike quanta, celestial mechanics is deterministic.)
Is this RSS, or something else? I've got it scrolling at the bottom of my screen showing, among other things, slashdot headlines.
If KNewsTicker is what they mean by RSS then I'm all for it. If RSS shoves any more info at me that a couple of dozen chars and a URL then it is junk (spam). I'd never use something which was always dumping flashing pictures on my screen.
At least with Debian, there's no reason for the user to worry about whether to patch or not -- unless they don't want all the newest and greatest versions of all their apps. You just do an update and get updates for everything you've got installed. (The kernel would be different. When was the last time there was a security patch for a kernel?)
I don't know about updating with other Linux distros.
Gee. I've never had to reboot my machine after updating with Debian.
I guess when I get around to upgrading my Linux kernel I'll have to do a reboot. I don't think they've figured out how to replace a running kernel -- yet.
I just update every so often so I've got all the latest and greatest of the 100s of apps I've got on this machine. I guess there's a few security fixes in one or another of the updates from time to time.
One thing I know. SoBig.F was only a pain because the network sucked for days.
I think kompiluj's (677438) suggestion is easier to implement and makes more sense. Make companies responsible for the software they _sell_. If the customer didn't pay anything then the customer has the responsibility.
This also makes sense in terms of commercial speech verses free speech. If you sell the speech then the government has the right to require that it be truthful speech. If you give the speech away the government has no such right.
I didn't see any other actual suggestions in the article which were all that bad, but tax breaks stink.
The exact opposite of a tax break might not be too bad. Have some government agency rate companies for their security and fine those with bad records (e.g. Microsoft),
There are two reasons for making it a capital offense for individuals, 1) solve the problem of what to do with the money, and 2) change the rules of the game. Since there isn't a question of what to do with the money for companies (the money would go with the parts), simply breaking it up works.
For people that rich it is a game. They don't need that much money.
All I'm trying to accomplish is putting a stop to the tendancy for money and power to concentrate over time. With this scheme the richest 10,000 or so people would have reason to avoid accumulating more money and power. It whacks off the long tail we now see in a wealth verses population graph.
...of a giant white shark being nibbled at by thousands of pirana. I don't care much for either of them, but it would be nice to see the shark stripped to the bone.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bother forwarding it to me. MS Word docs I cannot open will go into the circular file along with all the other spam.
Hmmm... Speaking of which. I think I've got Open Office here somewhere. Correction: MS Word docs will go into the circular file along with all the other spam.
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean that MS isn't out to get me.
" You've never seen of these I guess?"
How long did it take you to google a D&D set of dice?
(I'm not going to answer that guy above you. I don't even play D&D. He's some sort of orc or something.)
"I think they are saying that most outcomes have been accounted for, and unless some weird gravitational property occurs, it will miss."
You were doing well until you got to this statement. It doesn't have anything to do with weird gravitational properties. It's just that what you don't know might kill you.
They've looked into the sky. They see a rock. The rock is travelling in a general direction such that it might hit the earth in the future. We don't know the direction exactly. Therefore we don't know whether it will actually hit.
They'll have a better handle on the exact direction after taking more measurements.
Whatever... Probability per se is completely a posteri, and is determined by computing the frequency of occurance of a given outcome over a set of events. If the set of events contains only one member then the probability of a given outcome is either 0 or 1 depending upon whether that outcome resulted or not. As you take sets of larger cardinality the probability of an event takes on different values between 0 and 1 depending upon how many times the result actually happened for the set of events.
So... This rock is a single event, and as such the probability of that specific rock hitting the earth is either 0 or 1 depending upon whether the rock does in fact hit the earth or not. The only way to have some probability other than 0 or 1 is to throw more rocks at the Earth and find out how many of them actually hit the Earth. Then you take the number of rocks which hit and divide it by the number thrown.
What they are doing here (only very approximately) is pretending to throw rocks at the earth with a specific range of orbital characteristics and computing how many of them would have hit the earth. Since celestial mechanics is deterministic they can do this with a high degree of confidence. Only the unknowns in the current trajectory and mass of the rock effect the computation. They are computing an a priori most likely a postori probability if there was a large number of samples.
Probability is an empirical science, not an axiomatic one.
You've got an extra room to devote to the task?
I think computing paint would better serve the purpose. When will I be able to just paint a monitor onto my wall? (And I bet the fumes will be carinogenic.)
"Only for a uselessly narrow definition of "probability"."
Nope. With a fair coin it is proper to talk of the probability being 50:50. The difference between a fair coin and celestial mechanics is that with a fair coin it is not possible to define an experiment which will determine the result in advance. In celestial mechanics it is not only possible, but very straight forward. The experiments will in fact be done, and that is the reason the "probability" will change over time before the date of potential collision.
The thing is that real probabilistic analysis is used in computing the pseudo-probability which is the odds 909,000:1. Taking the information at hand, they compute a volume of space through which both the rock and the Earth might pass through during the given time and then compute the probability of them both being at the same place at the same time within that volume. As the quality of the information improves the volume decreases and the pseudo-probability more accurately approximates the actual probability. The odds either get extremely large or closer and closer to 1:1. (I'm being sloppy here, and not talking about gradients. A real analysis would have different probabilities of being within different parts of an infinite volume.)
On the other hand, this is in fact boringly technical. Pseudo-probabilities are very useful, and it is only natural to call them probabilities in normal conversation. You only have to worry about the difference when actually computing the pseudo-probabilities.
30-seconds? Let's all check SCO's news.
How about "give the boss a good story for being late"?
The odds are all about uncertainty, but they are only expressed as a probability. The actual probability is either 0 or 1, but given our uncertainty we only know the actual probability with enough accuracy to say that the odds are 909,000 to 1.
(Unlike quanta, celestial mechanics is deterministic.)
...taking the 909,000 to 1 odds?
Do we get hourly updates on the odds? Are the now 1,000,000 to 1 or 800,000 to 1?
I liked Bern...
Is this RSS, or something else? I've got it scrolling at the bottom of my screen showing, among other things, slashdot headlines.
If KNewsTicker is what they mean by RSS then I'm all for it. If RSS shoves any more info at me that a couple of dozen chars and a URL then it is junk (spam). I'd never use something which was always dumping flashing pictures on my screen.
You mean like the spammers who generate the slashdot articles I see headlines for streaming accross the bottom of my screen?
At least with Debian, there's no reason for the user to worry about whether to patch or not -- unless they don't want all the newest and greatest versions of all their apps. You just do an update and get updates for everything you've got installed. (The kernel would be different. When was the last time there was a security patch for a kernel?)
I don't know about updating with other Linux distros.
Gee. I've never had to reboot my machine after updating with Debian.
I guess when I get around to upgrading my Linux kernel I'll have to do a reboot. I don't think they've figured out how to replace a running kernel -- yet.
I just update every so often so I've got all the latest and greatest of the 100s of apps I've got on this machine. I guess there's a few security fixes in one or another of the updates from time to time.
One thing I know. SoBig.F was only a pain because the network sucked for days.
Hmmmm... I've been thinking of moving. Any EU company out there need a software engineer?
The U.S.of A.
I think kompiluj's (677438) suggestion is easier to implement and makes more sense. Make companies responsible for the software they _sell_. If the customer didn't pay anything then the customer has the responsibility.
This also makes sense in terms of commercial speech verses free speech. If you sell the speech then the government has the right to require that it be truthful speech. If you give the speech away the government has no such right.
I agree with this. Of course, the government is bound to turn your good suggestion into some sort of regulatory nightmare.
I didn't see any other actual suggestions in the article which were all that bad, but tax breaks stink.
The exact opposite of a tax break might not be too bad. Have some government agency rate companies for their security and fine those with bad records (e.g. Microsoft),
There are two reasons for making it a capital offense for individuals, 1) solve the problem of what to do with the money, and 2) change the rules of the game. Since there isn't a question of what to do with the money for companies (the money would go with the parts), simply breaking it up works.
For people that rich it is a game. They don't need that much money.
All I'm trying to accomplish is putting a stop to the tendancy for money and power to concentrate over time. With this scheme the richest 10,000 or so people would have reason to avoid accumulating more money and power. It whacks off the long tail we now see in a wealth verses population graph.
...of a giant white shark being nibbled at by thousands of pirana. I don't care much for either of them, but it would be nice to see the shark stripped to the bone.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.