Extrapolating would be extending the conclusion outside of the dataset.
Interpolating is applying a conclusion within the data range, so you're (sort of) interpolating.
To turn the statement into something more like extrapolation:
An average Icelander has something like a dozen sexual partners in life, seventy percent are happy with one-night stands.
Therefore Nordic countries, including Sweden and Finland, are promiscuous.
I sure know who my cousins are, so that was my first thought. Then I remembered when I was watching to mutual friends get to know each other, with a flirty vibe.
After talking for ten minutes or so, they realized they had the same grandfather. The dude sure looked socked and disappointed.
Title: "credit cards and pass"
TFS: "hashes of passwords leaked
That's a HUGE difference. Proper hashes of proper passwords may as well be public. It'd take billions of years to crack them. Unless of course Linode is still living in 1972 and using DES hashes, which may as well be plain text.
Linode, if you WERE using DES hashes, call me. We have some work to fo on your susyems. The people who designed your systems clearly aren't knowledgeable enough in security that they can be trusted to fix the problems they created.
For $4 million per mile, you must be thinking WIDENING a rural road, per lane, as opposed to BUILDING a road.
If you add one lane each direction, that's $7 million - $10 million per mile in rural areas to WIDEN it.
To BUILD a road, in urban areas, government run, typical cost for a 4 lane road is $17M - $75M PER LANE - around $125M per mile for four lanes.
The high end "up to $400 million per mile" is, as I mentioned, interchanges.
If email were supposed to be instant, nobody would have invented Instant Messaging. Email is designed to be reliable instead of instant. That's exactly why instant messaging was invented 15 years after email was, because email was not, is not, and is not designed to be instant. It's designed to be efficient and reliable. Read the protocols some time. Have a look at how send mail works. Queues to send, queues to relay, queues to receive.
I absolutely agree. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet.
I think it's because US-style government is designed to be, supposed to be, very fair, deliberative, and predictable (aka slow). That's exactly what I tech company should NOT be. Because the government is a rule making body who uses force of arms to compel people to do what they say, it's designed a certain way. It takes a few days for a company to choose a health plan. It took the US government 20 YEARS to choose Hillarycare (renamed Obamacare along the way.)
That's as it should be. To build out a city-wide fiber network in a year, Eric Schmidt needs to be able to make a quick decision on something and have his people carry it out immediately. If each of those decisions required committee hearings like government projects do, the Kansas City build out would start serving customers sometime around 2036. On the other hand, we don't WANT Obama, or the governor or mayor, to be allowed to make snap decisions and force everyone to comply. We WANT public hearings to check the power of the government officials and what they do in our name, with our kids' schools, with our money.
If a network rollout was handled the way government rule making should be handled, we'd have 128K service after twelve years at a cost of $80 / month. It would be done with the utmost fairness, respect for different viewpoints, etc, and would take forever to build something that sort of works.
think states and cities should be rolling out thei own fiber. Sort of like building roads.
I understand what you're getting at, but when states build roads it costs up to $400 million per mile. A "cheap" high speed road costs $50-$100 million per mile the way government does it. Not to mention, it takes from a year per mile for the easy part to five years per mile at interchanges. Do you have $4,000 / month to spend on your monthly internet bill? The way roads get built is exactly the WRONG way to build anything. States are the ones to build roads only because private companies normally can't bulldoze houses and such. (But when they do build toll roads, in costs FAR less on average )
In CA, for every dollar they spend on fiber, they have to spend ten on regulatory BS - environmental impact studies, energy efficiency certifications, etc etc. CA is a liberal "WE" state, where people think "WE" are building a fiber network, so "WE" (each member of the public) should discuss and decide on each detail. That particular "we" wants the project to run on sunshine and butterflys, and "we" don't care how much it costs. That may result in "fairness", but it doesn't get the job done on time or on budget.
Texas is the opposite - if someone wants to do something cool, they just do it. It's their network their building, not "ours", so we stay out of each others way and we can all get stuff done. That has benefits and drawbacks, but for someone wanting to build a city-wide fiber network in about a year it's very attractive.
CA would take a year per neighborhood because you have to protect the soho knob tailed worm, and you have to make sure that each week you run fiber to exactly as many gay homes as straight homes. In Texas, we just build the shit. If the shovel hits a worm, oh well. br>
Plus, in CA your workers are stoned. ; )
Most phones, of course, get dropped. Therefore, if a phone is engineered to be destroyed by being dropped, that's a planned, engineered failure.
Remember the old Bell system phones with the cradle you set the handset in? The cradle was designed so that when you knocked the phone off the table, it wouldn't hang up. You could keep talking. If the same drop destroys a phone, it's engineered that way.
From 1915 (and before) through 2009 and beyond. In 2009 the Dems had a KKK leader as their leader in the Senate and he'd still be the #2 democrat today if he hadn't died. In 2001, while he was President pro tempore, he was talking about "niggers". That's not a random guy off the street, that's the guy democrats keep electing as a top leader, using the N word to refer to the people who keep voting for him.
Watch any two politicians, one democrat and one republican. Count how many times each says racial words like "black people", "minorities", etc. I'll bet you $100 the Democrat will use racist language at least four times as much as the republican. It's insulting that they think my wife, because she's black, is too stupid to get into school on her own merits, or get a job on based on her hard work. It disgusts me that they imply that because she's female, that means she's helpless.
To make it easy, suppose a sample size of one and a population of four. You can say with certainty that "at least 25% of the Morris family thinks Bush sucked and Obama sucks twice as bad". So for a small population, even a sample size of ONE tells you something.
Compare to a sample size of one and a population of four million - you can draw no conclusion for the large population.
If the population is very large, and the sample is large, it doesn't much matter just how "very large" the population is.
Disregard my post, I didn't read GP carefully. I believe you are correct, assuming several things are true. That assumes that the sample is small compared to the population. Sampling 10 people of 30 will be more accurate than 10 people of 3 million.
Further, it assumes the sample size is "large", I believe. A small sample can more accurately represent a small population than it can a large population. (Ask four kernel developers their opinion of ext4 and you'll likely get respresentatoie opinions. Ask four Americans about abortion and you've learned nothing.) A large sample, however, can represent any size population ROUGHLY equally.
Too bad for you I watched Jon Stewart tonight. Seriously, I don't get why Republicans think they can bamboozle everybody with history
You didn't need to specifically tell us that you get your news and information from a comedian, that's obvious.
Sorry to be throwing all those historical facts at you. I know Maher-Stewart drones prefer wishes over facts.
I just took a poll. Based on that poll, 100% of Americans think you are wrong. The sample size of my poll: one.
Obviously a sample size of 1 is useless, 2 slightly less useless, and 10 nearly useless. A sample size of ALL would perfectly represent the population. Therefore we can see the general rule - the larger the sample size, the more accurate it is.
And outlawing seatbelts would reduce seatbelt injuries. Both total crime and violent crime increased with the gun ban, as they always do, anywhere it's tried. In the UK, violent crime DOUBLED when the potential victims were disarmed.
He does have a bit of a point. Who would want to vote for the party who filibustered the civil rights act?
From 1967 to 2009 they had a KKK leader as a primary leader of their party. (Byrd's first elected office was when he was elected to a KKK leadership position.)
Regarding women, they voted 170-85 against women's right to vote.
So he's got a point, who would want to vote for that party, the Democrats? I'd sure go with the party that voted FOR women's rights (Republicans 81-34 for women's right to vote , 1915), the party who pushed the Civil Rights Act through against the democrat filibuster, etc.
GP here. You have a point about the crab fishing and UFOs. On the other hand, Discovery Networks alone has four or five channels and just the Discovery Network channels alone have more good stuff (combined) than PBS does, simply because they have several such channels. So I'd say that Discovery Network replaces PBS, plus there are the other, non-affiliated channels.
More importantly, Discovery doesn't forcibly take my paycheck. PBS doesn't just have to be good, it has to be so essential that they are justified in taking our rent money, backed by force of arms if needed. That's a high bar.
If hobby programmers are already working for free, offering to pay them makes no sense.
Unless, of course, you want them to do more, or to do something specific, like code a feature you want. I contribute to Moodle, an open source learning management system. I have some use for a certain feature, but not enough to get me to actually code it. When another user mentioned getting three or four people to contribute to a bounty I said I'd code it if they came up with $100. (I'd get the $100 plus the benefit of being able to use the feature, worth $30 to me.) Without the bounty, I won't spend time to code that feature. With the bounty, I would.
Most OSS projects get basically no funding. I work on code if and only if my need for it is more than the work it requires. If it would take $100 worth of time, but I only get $50 worth of benefit, I won't do it. On the other hand, if I get $50 worth of benefit AND I collect a $70 bounty, I'd do the work.
But the big problem is this: how do you get continuous enough funding to have a staff, an office, health plans, etc. when you're doing individual bounties? The funding seems like it wouldn't be stable enough to support the company.
I'd guess that less than 1% of OSS projects have an office and a health plan. For the 99%.that include people doing it in their spare time, being able to make a little extra money contributing to OSS would sure encourage me to do more.
Tnw commercial for PBS fundraising says "If PBS didn't do it, who would?"
Discovery Channel
History Channel
TLC
Science Channel
Animal Planet
etc.
It was their own advertising which got me thinking that maybe it isn't necessary for them yo forcibly take money from everyone's paychecks. ( PBS is partially taxpayer funded.)
It takes a giant, ancient company like AT&T 5-10 years to make big strategic decisions, hiring consulting firms to analyze this and that, then another five years to actually build out fiber in a big city. So they have to decide this year to start getting off their asses if they don't want Google to potentially slaughter them several years from now.
Which country do you think CREATED the internet? It is precisely the "incorrect American theories" you want to get rid of that created the internet in the first place!
Reaganomics, you say. Reaganomics boils down to "cut taxes and increase R&D.
1981 Reagan's first budget expands DARPA funding
1982 DARPA uses Reagan funding to develop Internet Protocol (IP)
1984 After turning the Carter recession into a boom, Reagan is re-elected in a landslide
1987 Ordinary consumers have internet service in their house
1988 The best president since Kennedy finishes up his two terms
Yeah, because that really worked out well for the cellular companies. You need to turn the cock back about 30 years.
Hmm, cell phones went from suitcase sized devices in the trunk that cost $3 / minute to a fully capable computer in your pocket with unlimited everything for $35 / month. You say that's the result of deregulation?
Stop and ponder that for a minute. You might have just taught yourself something.
Slashdot Mirror
Extrapolating would be extending the conclusion outside of the dataset. Interpolating is applying a conclusion within the data range, so you're (sort of) interpolating.
To turn the statement into something more like extrapolation:
An average Icelander has something like a dozen sexual partners in life, seventy percent are happy with one-night stands.
Therefore Nordic countries, including Sweden and Finland, are promiscuous.
I sure know who my cousins are, so that was my first thought. Then I remembered when I was watching to mutual friends get to know each other, with a flirty vibe. After talking for ten minutes or so, they realized they had the same grandfather. The dude sure looked socked and disappointed.
Here's a "proper hash", as our customers use. have fun trying to crack it!
$5$NhJlA5yUIk62$CC6DlreELmUVwagQqpPsEcZQoihQTCYklQz8y1me/p6
Title: "credit cards and pass"
TFS: "hashes of passwords leaked
That's a HUGE difference. Proper hashes of proper passwords may as well be public. It'd take billions of years to crack them. Unless of course Linode is still living in 1972 and using DES hashes, which may as well be plain text.
Linode, if you WERE using DES hashes, call me. We have some work to fo on your susyems. The people who designed your systems clearly aren't knowledgeable enough in security that they can be trusted to fix the problems they created.
For $4 million per mile, you must be thinking WIDENING a rural road, per lane, as opposed to BUILDING a road.
If you add one lane each direction, that's $7 million - $10 million per mile in rural areas to WIDEN it.
To BUILD a road, in urban areas, government run, typical cost for a 4 lane road is $17M - $75M PER LANE - around $125M per mile for four lanes.
The high end "up to $400 million per mile" is, as I mentioned, interchanges.
If email were supposed to be instant, nobody would have invented Instant Messaging. Email is designed to be reliable instead of instant. That's exactly why instant messaging was invented 15 years after email was, because email was not, is not, and is not designed to be instant. It's designed to be efficient and reliable. Read the protocols some time. Have a look at how send mail works. Queues to send, queues to relay, queues to receive.
I absolutely agree. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet.
I think it's because US-style government is designed to be, supposed to be, very fair, deliberative, and predictable (aka slow). That's exactly what I tech company should NOT be. Because the government is a rule making body who uses force of arms to compel people to do what they say, it's designed a certain way. It takes a few days for a company to choose a health plan. It took the US government 20 YEARS to choose Hillarycare (renamed Obamacare along the way.)
That's as it should be. To build out a city-wide fiber network in a year, Eric Schmidt needs to be able to make a quick decision on something and have his people carry it out immediately. If each of those decisions required committee hearings like government projects do, the Kansas City build out would start serving customers sometime around 2036. On the other hand, we don't WANT Obama, or the governor or mayor, to be allowed to make snap decisions and force everyone to comply. We WANT public hearings to check the power of the government officials and what they do in our name, with our kids' schools, with our money.
If a network rollout was handled the way government rule making should be handled, we'd have 128K service after twelve years at a cost of $80 / month. It would be done with the utmost fairness, respect for different viewpoints, etc, and would take forever to build something that sort of works.
think states and cities should be rolling out thei own fiber. Sort of like building roads.
I understand what you're getting at, but when states build roads it costs up to $400 million per mile. A "cheap" high speed road costs $50-$100 million per mile the way government does it. Not to mention, it takes from a year per mile for the easy part to five years per mile at interchanges. Do you have $4,000 / month to spend on your monthly internet bill? The way roads get built is exactly the WRONG way to build anything. States are the ones to build roads only because private companies normally can't bulldoze houses and such. (But when they do build toll roads, in costs FAR less on average )
In CA, for every dollar they spend on fiber, they have to spend ten on regulatory BS - environmental impact studies, energy efficiency certifications, etc etc. CA is a liberal "WE" state, where people think "WE" are building a fiber network, so "WE" (each member of the public) should discuss and decide on each detail. That particular "we" wants the project to run on sunshine and butterflys, and "we" don't care how much it costs. That may result in "fairness", but it doesn't get the job done on time or on budget.
Texas is the opposite - if someone wants to do something cool, they just do it. It's their network their building, not "ours", so we stay out of each others way and we can all get stuff done. That has benefits and drawbacks, but for someone wanting to build a city-wide fiber network in about a year it's very attractive.
CA would take a year per neighborhood because you have to protect the soho knob tailed worm, and you have to make sure that each week you run fiber to exactly as many gay homes as straight homes. In Texas, we just build the shit. If the shovel hits a worm, oh well. br>
Plus, in CA your workers are stoned. ; )
Most phones, of course, get dropped. Therefore, if a phone is engineered to be destroyed by being dropped, that's a planned, engineered failure.
Remember the old Bell system phones with the cradle you set the handset in? The cradle was designed so that when you knocked the phone off the table, it wouldn't hang up. You could keep talking. If the same drop destroys a phone, it's engineered that way.
Ah yes, the party from 1915. Let's vote for them.
From 1915 (and before) through 2009 and beyond. In 2009 the Dems had a KKK leader as their leader in the Senate and he'd still be the #2 democrat today if he hadn't died. In 2001, while he was President pro tempore, he was talking about "niggers". That's not a random guy off the street, that's the guy democrats keep electing as a top leader, using the N word to refer to the people who keep voting for him.
Watch any two politicians, one democrat and one republican. Count how many times each says racial words like "black people", "minorities", etc. I'll bet you $100 the Democrat will use racist language at least four times as much as the republican. It's insulting that they think my wife, because she's black, is too stupid to get into school on her own merits, or get a job on based on her hard work. It disgusts me that they imply that because she's female, that means she's helpless.
To make it easy, suppose a sample size of one and a population of four. You can say with certainty that "at least 25% of the Morris family thinks Bush sucked and Obama sucks twice as bad". So for a small population, even a sample size of ONE tells you something.
Compare to a sample size of one and a population of four million - you can draw no conclusion for the large population.
If the population is very large, and the sample is large, it doesn't much matter just how "very large" the population is.
Disregard my post, I didn't read GP carefully. I believe you are correct, assuming several things are true. That assumes that the sample is small compared to the population. Sampling 10 people of 30 will be more accurate than 10 people of 3 million.
Further, it assumes the sample size is "large", I believe. A small sample can more accurately represent a small population than it can a large population. (Ask four kernel developers their opinion of ext4 and you'll likely get respresentatoie opinions. Ask four Americans about abortion and you've learned nothing.) A large sample, however, can represent any size population ROUGHLY equally.
Too bad for you I watched Jon Stewart tonight. Seriously, I don't get why Republicans think they can bamboozle everybody with history
You didn't need to specifically tell us that you get your news and information from a comedian, that's obvious.
Sorry to be throwing all those historical facts at you. I know Maher-Stewart drones prefer wishes over facts.
Facts are stubborn things.
I just took a poll. Based on that poll, 100% of Americans think you are wrong. The sample size of my poll: one.
Obviously a sample size of 1 is useless, 2 slightly less useless, and 10 nearly useless. A sample size of ALL would perfectly represent the population. Therefore we can see the general rule - the larger the sample size, the more accurate it is.
And outlawing seatbelts would reduce seatbelt injuries. Both total crime and violent crime increased with the gun ban, as they always do, anywhere it's tried. In the UK, violent crime DOUBLED when the potential victims were disarmed.
He does have a bit of a point. Who would want to vote for the party who filibustered the civil rights act?
From 1967 to 2009 they had a KKK leader as a primary leader of their party. (Byrd's first elected office was when he was elected to a KKK leadership position.)
Regarding women, they voted 170-85 against women's right to vote.
So he's got a point, who would want to vote for that party, the Democrats? I'd sure go with the party that voted FOR women's rights (Republicans 81-34 for women's right to vote , 1915), the party who pushed the Civil Rights Act through against the democrat filibuster, etc.
None of which helps if you have a piece of software storing all the credentials you need to log onto a remote machine.
If you follow my suggestion and use command="", it certainly DOES help that that login can only run "startbackup" and nothing else.
GP here. You have a point about the crab fishing and UFOs. On the other hand, Discovery Networks alone has four or five channels and just the Discovery Network channels alone have more good stuff (combined) than PBS does, simply because they have several such channels. So I'd say that Discovery Network replaces PBS, plus there are the other, non-affiliated channels.
More importantly, Discovery doesn't forcibly take my paycheck. PBS doesn't just have to be good, it has to be so essential that they are justified in taking our rent money, backed by force of arms if needed. That's a high bar.
If hobby programmers are already working for free, offering to pay them makes no sense.
Unless, of course, you want them to do more, or to do something specific, like code a feature you want. I contribute to Moodle, an open source learning management system. I have some use for a certain feature, but not enough to get me to actually code it. When another user mentioned getting three or four people to contribute to a bounty I said I'd code it if they came up with $100. (I'd get the $100 plus the benefit of being able to use the feature, worth $30 to me.) Without the bounty, I won't spend time to code that feature. With the bounty, I would.
But the big problem is this: how do you get continuous enough funding to have a staff, an office, health plans, etc. when you're doing individual bounties? The funding seems like it wouldn't be stable enough to support the company.
I'd guess that less than 1% of OSS projects have an office and a health plan. For the 99%.that include people doing it in their spare time, being able to make a little extra money contributing to OSS would sure encourage me to do more.
Tnw commercial for PBS fundraising says "If PBS didn't do it, who would?" Discovery Channel History Channel TLC Science Channel Animal Planet etc. It was their own advertising which got me thinking that maybe it isn't necessary for them yo forcibly take money from everyone's paychecks. ( PBS is partially taxpayer funded.)
It takes a giant, ancient company like AT&T 5-10 years to make big strategic decisions, hiring consulting firms to analyze this and that, then another five years to actually build out fiber in a big city. So they have to decide this year to start getting off their asses if they don't want Google to potentially slaughter them several years from now.
Which country do you think CREATED the internet? It is precisely the "incorrect American theories" you want to get rid of that created the internet in the first place!
Reaganomics, you say. Reaganomics boils down to "cut taxes and increase R&D.
1981 Reagan's first budget expands DARPA funding
1982 DARPA uses Reagan funding to develop Internet Protocol (IP)
1984 After turning the Carter recession into a boom, Reagan is re-elected in a landslide
1987 Ordinary consumers have internet service in their house
1988 The best president since Kennedy finishes up his two terms
Yeah, because that really worked out well for the cellular companies. You need to turn the cock back about 30 years.
Hmm, cell phones went from suitcase sized devices in the trunk that cost $3 / minute to a fully capable computer in your pocket with unlimited everything for $35 / month. You say that's the result of deregulation?
Stop and ponder that for a minute. You might have just taught yourself something.