Statistics do not dictate how things work in the same way that the bernoulli equation doesn't dictate how gas flows... it just observes it and can predict it mathematically to some degree of accuracy. This kind of idiocy is like looking at moores law saying "it's exponential, chips improve to infinity" without attempting to look at the underlying mechanisms.
... or at least, farmVille blackjack, and targeted ads with the promise of hookers but actually only subliminally delivering politically suggestive ideas based on mined data of unsuspecting users.
... actually forget the blackjack, and the hookers.
This really highlights just how out of touch journals are with reality, they couldn't have picked a field more against paywalls with a huge track record of free and open research papers than ML.
If you exclude the "superstars" you know... the people who are already stinking rich, and instead focus on the other 99.9999% of actual musicians then it's (43 + 9.3 + 3.6) / 3.6 = 6.4%
Pretty low, but I honestly was expecting sub percentage:P basically unless you are a superstar you have no leverage and almost all of the profit goes to the mob unless you deal directly with the consumer or specialise in live music.
Chrome users should be genuinely happy that they can now use both
LMFAO, so preemptively defensive.
An NSS Labs benchmark revealed that Edge (with its SmartScreen API) caught 99 percent of all phishing URLs thrown at it during a test last year, while Chrome only detected 87 percent of the malicious links users accessed.
You will have to forgive me if I consider this a worthless statistic... you know microsoft have a history if "beating everyone else" in their own hand crafted benchmarks only to be utter shit in reality (especially when talking about browsers).
This reads like misdirection news. This is "big centralized corp"'s issue not the Internet's, the Internet is not inherently evil, the Internet does not inherently set out to exploit your information and mislead you. But big corp and advertising does.
This is just a new lesson the general public has to learn given the relatively new possibility of disseminating their personal information in massive quantities, they have to learn not to automatically give it to big shiny companies and trust them with it. I'm not give facebook a pass - i think they are disgusting and always have, but it's also the nature of that business so it's kind of inevitable.
...A lot of it is luck, but it's also about taking advantage of luck when it comes your way. And it takes a long, long series of smart moves to get that far. Out of 10.000 "novice programmers" in college, there will only be a handful who'll get past step 3...
I completely agree with you, and I also apreciate the skill of oportunism in luck, but your argument for the handful of 10k novice programmers that achieve that combination: Just like success is not allways brilliance, i'd argue being in the minority isn't either, there are sometimes correlations, but they are not consistent or even exclusive to an "increadible mind".
> Though clearly an incredible mind
Really? isn't this confusing success with brilliance. There are many programmers who have pioneered areas of compsci and created impressive technical work with deep insights all while on the job that deserve to be called brilliant... if zuck has done anything like that it's not publicly visible, all I can see is another lucky businessman, the fact that he can code seems more circumstantial to the success of his idea than the other way around. I fail to see the brilliance of intellect of a lucky one trick pony.
Yes, I'm sure that you carefully vet all of the code that is running on your personal computer to ensure that it cannot break out of its virtualization sandbox.
You are arguing in my favor, it's even more likely anyone of those arbitrary environments to not have spectre and meltdown mitigations in place.
I'm sure that you're allowing third parties to execute code on your personal computer all the time and not just in a web browser
Yes, we all do, but I don't run them all under root.
...and was starting to find performance slipping...
Performance does not "slip" on CPUs, it's not like a mechanical engine with parts that wear out and a gradually decreasing torque... It's your expectations that creep, software that bloats and new software built on the assumption of bleeding edge performance.
Those issues can be alleviated with more OSS which is not trying to push products, I understand this does not suit everyone, especially for all those whom's profession relies on heavy propitiatory media applications (in which case you are locked in a forward march with those vendors), but if you are lucky enough to be potentially free from all that then using decade old hardware today is extremely comfortable and difficult to perceive substantial performance differences without measuring intentionally CPU intensive tasks.
I'm not against progress in hardware of course but intel provide very little carrot and lots of stick with this move... but that stick will driver me elsewhere thanks.
Yeah, just sandbox any risky software by running it in a vm... oh wait.
Yup only if you are happy turning off hardware virtualisation for super slow performance, oh and of course make sure you are running a hypervisor with spectre mitigation patches... Yeah I feel safe... I just have to make sure I don't use the wrong software... you know the software that has intel mitigation's sprinkled everywhere because that's the right way to fix this of course.
Your CPU still works fine, it's just if you run the wrong software then there's the possibility someone might be able to hack you
You do realise that your definition of "wrong software" is anything that runs potentially untrusted code that does not also contain spectre specific mitigation.
Name one function that you use that has become unreliable and for which you deserve compensation.
Oh fuck off please... your argument is the same as Equifax's defence that it's ok to leak everyone's sensitive info because it's impossible to prove direct damages.
> you could not have taught this at PhD level
Pathetic. I did precisely that about 25 years ago, for PhD students in Mathematics. Remember, I'm still the only one writing anything specific to mechanical models here. Care to show your skills by, say, telling us a thing or two about, say, properly dealing with the incompressibility constraint in CFD?
As I suspected, you have completely missed why everyone here has issue with you: your current attitude is not welcome in the scientific or academic world because it is self serving, you may or may not have filled the role of a professor but you did not and clearly currently cannot _play_ it to anyone else's benefit. People will be interested in what you have to bring to a discussion when you stop trying to measure the length of your penis and compare it to everyone. You are not necessarily unique in this aspect, it's just that most people grow out of it, you appear to have much growing to do.
What I said is perfectly understood by any proper scientist.
Strain fields are not relevant to every scientist's field (it's more relevant to continuum mechanics just as you noted), but then by applying the term "proper" perhaps you are referring to those more properly learned scientists by some canonical reference of "science" - care to share with us filthy commoners?
First, it it those people's duty to look up the possible references, if they want to style themselves as, you know, scientists; since this is very old news, and I'm not the one at fault, I won't spend the time required to find the old papers.
Second, if you had any kind of skill in the field
How convenient of you to exclude yourself from your own rules.
you would have noted that the paper talks about "fluid", not "liquid". That's not the same thing. Learn elementary rheology, or better, continuum Mechanics. I won't start a basic course here (although I could, having taught this at PhD level), but for the record, a liquid does undergo strain; but by definition of a _liquid_, only its time rate involves dissipation. And by the way, a change with time in the strain field does very obviously necessarily occur here. Then, the behavior of a general fluid can involve the strain field proper, such as occurs in say, viscoelasticity.
Do you even know what a field is in PDEs, anyway? Or PDEs? Ever heard about Navier-Stokes? Or any kind of mathematics?
You are saying all the right things as far as tooting your knowledge of fluid dynamics (at least as far as name dropping can get you), but in all the wrong ways. I assure you, you could not have taught this at PhD level, and you will probably never understand why. My guess is you are an undergrad with second order ignorance.
To be fair, Apple sells actual products and provides services for those products. Facebook just provides a service "for free". Apple doesn't need money from your data while Facebook depends on it.
While you are correct about the data specifically, I feel like they are actually quite similar if you step through what is being done with the data... ultimately the user data at Facebook is being used to manipulate people into thinking a certain way (we've moved from selling user data to the ultimate end point of physiological manipulation). Now look at Apple again, see any similarity? not political sure, but for other purposes. The difference is they haven't needed to invade peoples privacy to do it.
If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
Except the most significant leaks in question occurred in the UK with a UK company and resulting in clear manipulation of the most significant UK referendum of the century not to mention the last US election... I'd not be surprised if the US government forced Zuckerburg to go to the UK since the whole affair is deeply tied to both countries.
It also has four ARM cores and clocked at 1.8 GHz (a third faster) but is several times faster than the Raspberry Pi B+ in some CPU benchmarks. The difference is that the Tinkerboard's CPU cores are running out-of-order while the Raspberry Pi B+'s A53 cores run in-order.
Yes Hz isn't everything, but then out-of-order isn't either, (not just talking about spectre and co either), but power efficiency, scalar CPUs have the edge there and it makes me wonder what the future will be like when CPUs are made for pennies and the real cost is power. But speaking in more current terms, people do like to use these boards for battery powered projects, and that's where the pi zero will rule for power efficiency (not just absolute power draw but compute-per-watt).
Sorry Tim but your wrong here, you can't fix facebook because the mistake is systemic - it's centralised, and there is no fix for that which results in facebook still existing and profiting from user data on the other side. So long as facebook exists it's users are in danger.
The cyber attack pilfered more than 31 terabytes of academic data.
I hate it when media quantifies dammage in terms of bytes... bytes of what? I can fit 31TiB in my desk draw, at little cost. The significance of the size entirely depends on what it is... is it 31 TiB of academic security footage? or decades worth of research? reducing qualatative dammage information to these kinds of numbers looses all relevance, much like that kid who looked over his techers shoulder to see his password who was charged with "computer missuse act".
Slashdot Mirror
Statistics do not dictate how things work in the same way that the bernoulli equation doesn't dictate how gas flows... it just observes it and can predict it mathematically to some degree of accuracy. This kind of idiocy is like looking at moores law saying "it's exponential, chips improve to infinity" without attempting to look at the underlying mechanisms.
... with blackjack, and hookers.
... or at least, farmVille blackjack, and targeted ads with the promise of hookers but actually only subliminally delivering politically suggestive ideas based on mined data of unsuspecting users.
... actually forget the blackjack, and the hookers.
This really highlights just how out of touch journals are with reality, they couldn't have picked a field more against paywalls with a huge track record of free and open research papers than ML.
If you exclude the "superstars" you know... the people who are already stinking rich, and instead focus on the other 99.9999% of actual musicians then it's (43 + 9.3 + 3.6) / 3.6 = 6.4%
Pretty low, but I honestly was expecting sub percentage :P basically unless you are a superstar you have no leverage and almost all of the profit goes to the mob unless you deal directly with the consumer or specialise in live music.
Chrome users should be genuinely happy that they can now use both
LMFAO, so preemptively defensive.
An NSS Labs benchmark revealed that Edge (with its SmartScreen API) caught 99 percent of all phishing URLs thrown at it during a test last year, while Chrome only detected 87 percent of the malicious links users accessed.
You will have to forgive me if I consider this a worthless statistic... you know microsoft have a history if "beating everyone else" in their own hand crafted benchmarks only to be utter shit in reality (especially when talking about browsers).
This reads like misdirection news. This is "big centralized corp"'s issue not the Internet's, the Internet is not inherently evil, the Internet does not inherently set out to exploit your information and mislead you. But big corp and advertising does.
This is just a new lesson the general public has to learn given the relatively new possibility of disseminating their personal information in massive quantities, they have to learn not to automatically give it to big shiny companies and trust them with it. I'm not give facebook a pass - i think they are disgusting and always have, but it's also the nature of that business so it's kind of inevitable.
...A lot of it is luck, but it's also about taking advantage of luck when it comes your way. And it takes a long, long series of smart moves to get that far. Out of 10.000 "novice programmers" in college, there will only be a handful who'll get past step 3...
I completely agree with you, and I also apreciate the skill of oportunism in luck, but your argument for the handful of 10k novice programmers that achieve that combination: Just like success is not allways brilliance, i'd argue being in the minority isn't either, there are sometimes correlations, but they are not consistent or even exclusive to an "increadible mind".
Yup, I just tried it.
> Though clearly an incredible mind Really? isn't this confusing success with brilliance. There are many programmers who have pioneered areas of compsci and created impressive technical work with deep insights all while on the job that deserve to be called brilliant... if zuck has done anything like that it's not publicly visible, all I can see is another lucky businessman, the fact that he can code seems more circumstantial to the success of his idea than the other way around. I fail to see the brilliance of intellect of a lucky one trick pony.
Yes, I'm sure that you carefully vet all of the code that is running on your personal computer to ensure that it cannot break out of its virtualization sandbox.
You are arguing in my favor, it's even more likely anyone of those arbitrary environments to not have spectre and meltdown mitigations in place.
I'm sure that you're allowing third parties to execute code on your personal computer all the time and not just in a web browser
Yes, we all do, but I don't run them all under root.
... That is the general idea.
...and was starting to find performance slipping...
Performance does not "slip" on CPUs, it's not like a mechanical engine with parts that wear out and a gradually decreasing torque... It's your expectations that creep, software that bloats and new software built on the assumption of bleeding edge performance.
Those issues can be alleviated with more OSS which is not trying to push products, I understand this does not suit everyone, especially for all those whom's profession relies on heavy propitiatory media applications (in which case you are locked in a forward march with those vendors), but if you are lucky enough to be potentially free from all that then using decade old hardware today is extremely comfortable and difficult to perceive substantial performance differences without measuring intentionally CPU intensive tasks.
I'm not against progress in hardware of course but intel provide very little carrot and lots of stick with this move... but that stick will driver me elsewhere thanks.
Yeah, just sandbox any risky software by running it in a vm... oh wait.
Yup only if you are happy turning off hardware virtualisation for super slow performance, oh and of course make sure you are running a hypervisor with spectre mitigation patches... Yeah I feel safe... I just have to make sure I don't use the wrong software... you know the software that has intel mitigation's sprinkled everywhere because that's the right way to fix this of course.
Your CPU still works fine, it's just if you run the wrong software then there's the possibility someone might be able to hack you
You do realise that your definition of "wrong software" is anything that runs potentially untrusted code that does not also contain spectre specific mitigation.
Name one function that you use that has become unreliable and for which you deserve compensation.
Oh fuck off please... your argument is the same as Equifax's defence that it's ok to leak everyone's sensitive info because it's impossible to prove direct damages.
> you could not have taught this at PhD level Pathetic. I did precisely that about 25 years ago, for PhD students in Mathematics. Remember, I'm still the only one writing anything specific to mechanical models here. Care to show your skills by, say, telling us a thing or two about, say, properly dealing with the incompressibility constraint in CFD?
As I suspected, you have completely missed why everyone here has issue with you: your current attitude is not welcome in the scientific or academic world because it is self serving, you may or may not have filled the role of a professor but you did not and clearly currently cannot _play_ it to anyone else's benefit. People will be interested in what you have to bring to a discussion when you stop trying to measure the length of your penis and compare it to everyone. You are not necessarily unique in this aspect, it's just that most people grow out of it, you appear to have much growing to do.
What I said is perfectly understood by any proper scientist.
Strain fields are not relevant to every scientist's field (it's more relevant to continuum mechanics just as you noted), but then by applying the term "proper" perhaps you are referring to those more properly learned scientists by some canonical reference of "science" - care to share with us filthy commoners?
First, it it those people's duty to look up the possible references, if they want to style themselves as, you know, scientists; since this is very old news, and I'm not the one at fault, I won't spend the time required to find the old papers.
Second, if you had any kind of skill in the field
How convenient of you to exclude yourself from your own rules.
you would have noted that the paper talks about "fluid", not "liquid". That's not the same thing. Learn elementary rheology, or better, continuum Mechanics. I won't start a basic course here (although I could, having taught this at PhD level), but for the record, a liquid does undergo strain; but by definition of a _liquid_, only its time rate involves dissipation. And by the way, a change with time in the strain field does very obviously necessarily occur here. Then, the behavior of a general fluid can involve the strain field proper, such as occurs in say, viscoelasticity.
Do you even know what a field is in PDEs, anyway? Or PDEs? Ever heard about Navier-Stokes? Or any kind of mathematics?
You are saying all the right things as far as tooting your knowledge of fluid dynamics (at least as far as name dropping can get you), but in all the wrong ways. I assure you, you could not have taught this at PhD level, and you will probably never understand why. My guess is you are an undergrad with second order ignorance.
All of which can and has been ignored by parliament. That is the difference between limited government via constitution and what the UK has.
You only have the rights your betters let you have.
Care to cite anything specific or is this just mere handwavey "your wrong because it doesn't work and my government is better"
To be fair, Apple sells actual products and provides services for those products. Facebook just provides a service "for free". Apple doesn't need money from your data while Facebook depends on it.
While you are correct about the data specifically, I feel like they are actually quite similar if you step through what is being done with the data... ultimately the user data at Facebook is being used to manipulate people into thinking a certain way (we've moved from selling user data to the ultimate end point of physiological manipulation). Now look at Apple again, see any similarity? not political sure, but for other purposes. The difference is they haven't needed to invade peoples privacy to do it.
If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
Except the most significant leaks in question occurred in the UK with a UK company and resulting in clear manipulation of the most significant UK referendum of the century not to mention the last US election... I'd not be surprised if the US government forced Zuckerburg to go to the UK since the whole affair is deeply tied to both countries.
It also has four ARM cores and clocked at 1.8 GHz (a third faster) but is several times faster than the Raspberry Pi B+ in some CPU benchmarks. The difference is that the Tinkerboard's CPU cores are running out-of-order while the Raspberry Pi B+'s A53 cores run in-order.
Yes Hz isn't everything, but then out-of-order isn't either, (not just talking about spectre and co either), but power efficiency, scalar CPUs have the edge there and it makes me wonder what the future will be like when CPUs are made for pennies and the real cost is power. But speaking in more current terms, people do like to use these boards for battery powered projects, and that's where the pi zero will rule for power efficiency (not just absolute power draw but compute-per-watt).
Sorry Tim but your wrong here, you can't fix facebook because the mistake is systemic - it's centralised, and there is no fix for that which results in facebook still existing and profiting from user data on the other side. So long as facebook exists it's users are in danger.
What is the basis of your "right"?
We are very different people.
The cyber attack pilfered more than 31 terabytes of academic data.
I hate it when media quantifies dammage in terms of bytes... bytes of what? I can fit 31TiB in my desk draw, at little cost. The significance of the size entirely depends on what it is... is it 31 TiB of academic security footage? or decades worth of research? reducing qualatative dammage information to these kinds of numbers looses all relevance, much like that kid who looked over his techers shoulder to see his password who was charged with "computer missuse act".