Please kindly refrain from making up random bullshit and pretending you are quoting the article. The article says:
The end result is that the studyâ(TM)s overall findings are still accurate in one sense: There is a correlation between the Mediterranean diet and better health outcomes. But in another sense, the paper was entirely wrong: the Mediterranean diet does not cause better health outcomes....
A major study in 2017 found that if you adjusted for income, the diet doesnâ(TM)t actually improve heart health: Only wealthy people get the cardiovascular benefits of the Mediterranean diet....
UN data show that people in Mediterranean European countries are more likely to be overweight
Here we're talking about a handgun. In a handgun, approximately half of the forward energy is in the projectile, so without a muzzle brake the shooter would absorb twice as much energy as the target.
Not that hardly anyone uses a muzzle brake on a handgun, but let's suppose someone does. At handgun pressures, the muzzle brake might reduce recoil by 10%-15%. So through the grip, the shooter feels 185% of the energy that the target gets.
Suppose a perfect muzzle brake which redirects all of the excess up and sideways (we assume here it doesn't direct the muzzle flash back into the shooters face.) That perfect muzzle brake would eliminate the excess recoil due to the gases being expelled, leaving the projectile as the only source of recoil. The recoil delivered to the shooter would then be exactly equal to the energy delivered to the target, plus the energy the projectile loses to air resistance. The recoil is still higher than the energy of the projectile.
As to you and your friend, a very good muzzle brake, under the right conditions on a high velocity rifle, can reduce recoil energy by about 50%. In other words, in the best case, it can reduce 6000 Joule to 3000. So that's odd. However, different guns can also deliver that energy over a different period of time. 6000 Joule would be a massage if delivered over a sufficiently long period of time.
Poking a hole in someone's spinal cord, heart, or certain parts of the brain will kill them. Other that, doctors intentionally remove lungs, kidneys, etc, to make someone's life better in some cases. Poking a hole in one is unlikely to kill someone.
Real life shootings are very, very different from movies. Getting shot doesn't knock you back either. You may recall Newton's third law says the force backward on the person shooting is at least equal to the force of the bullet. Actually the person shooting gets a significantly greater force than person shot - the gases come out of the barrel with significant energy that wasn't transferred to the bullet. The person shooting gets "knocked backward" with about twice as much energy as the person shot (half inch vs quarter inch).
Because the worst possible situation, for everyone, is that the file has a random mix of PascalCase, camelCase,.lowercase, and under_scores. Every time you use an identifier you have to look at which casing is used for each identifier. Choosing ANY formatting style is better than not choosing one. Better for everyone.
> We do prosecute copyright though, but just because we do doesn't mean we should.
I find it interesting you said "prosecute", rather than saying it shouldn't be a crime. I would say that we should prosecute large-scale criminal activity, especially criminal enterprises - crime for money. If you think it should be perfectly illegal to run a company ripping off other people's work, say that. It doesn't make sense to say "it's a crime, well not really, it's never prosecuted".
> Any more than we should prosecute smoking Pot.
The more accurate analogy would be a pot farm, or large smuggling operation. They don't prosecute small-scale copyright infringement where nobody is even selling anything. As mentioned in my post, considerations for prosecution include: Size and scale of the operation Financial aspects (are they doing millions of dollars in unlawful sales) Criminal history of the offender Culpability of each offender
> it's unreasonable to suggest that a person in one company who gets hired by another would... refuse to pass that information
Remind me to never hire you. Or trust you in any way - as a friend, co-worker, etc. You might fit in well at one of the Clinton organizations, though. Anyway, you can think the law is unreasonable, but that doesn't change what the law is.
> Ie rank and file should not expect to change jobs to master their skill. They should expect to be a jack of all trades and probably a master of none.
You don't master a field by repeatedly looking at it from the same angle, staying in an echo chamber where you're never exposed to other points of view, especially from people in different but related fields, and doing the same thing the same way over and over again. Doing the same job over and over again, the same way, is the domain of robots. It's how you set yourself up to be automated away.
To master a field, you learn all different aspects of it. You apply it in different ways. You learn from people in other fields. For example, part of what I do is software quality, trying to make sure defects don't manifest in production. To help master that, I did a study of how airplane mechanics avoid having defects manifest in flight. Airplane engines are completely torn apart and rebuilt every 1,800 hours, so there is plenty of opportunity for error in rebuilding, assembly, and tuning, but airplane mechanics have a very low rate of defects affecting flight. How? Learning the answer helps me master my field of producing top quality, robust, reliable software.
> Is it less of an issue because you're less likely to ever use trade secrets in your new job or that copying ideas into a different field with a non-competitor is less likely to get your sued/arrested? That last point speaks nothing about ethics
Both. The new company is less likely to have any need of secrets about security scanning, AND they don't care if Lockheed Martin uses some of the same techniques, because they aren't competing with Lockheed. It IS ethically different because you can't have an ethical violation without a victim. If the old company doesn't particularly care whether I share the information, there's no ethical problem.
I agree CONSISTENT style is more important than any specific style choice. Whether you want to coddle your braces or not, pick one and stick to it.
On our team, we have a Git hook that runs an appropriate *-tidy, so when code os committed it's automatically formatted according to our team's standard for whichever language, which is generally the same as what most people use in that language. Write code using any formatting you want - it'll be automatically be made consistent before other people need to read it.
Have you never seen the FBI Warning at the beginning of every DVD or VHS? The FBI is part of DOJ.
There are both civil and criminal copyright statues, very much like you can sue someone for taking your money in order to try to get some of it back, and the government can prosecute theft criminally. Just this week in the news a major star was suing their manager for allegedly stealing the celebrity's money. That civil suit, to recover the money, doesn't bar criminal prosecution if in fact a crime was committed.
Most copyright cases can be adequately handled by a civil case, and the FBI doesn't spend their resources on it if a civil suit will do instead. The FBI can and does criminally prosecute when the criminal activity justifies prosecution based on: The scale and seriousness of the offense(s) Criminal history of the offender(s) Culpability of each offender Availability of civil remedies Likely outcome of the case Whether the offender has simply ignored prior civil judgements Other factors specific to each case
Employees can do a couple of things to avoid a criminal (and unethical) act when they go to work for a competitor:
Before leaving, don't artificially access or store secrets that you don't already know. Especially, don't FRAUDULENTLY gain access to secrets that aren't part of your job requirements.
Don't tell your new company secrets from your old company. What is a secret? Basically, it's anything the old company makes an effort to keep confidential.
If you do reveal secrets, some people at the new company might like that, and some more insightful people may recognize that means you'll still THEIR secrets to the next company, so you can't be trusted. Sometimes it might make sense to say something like "I take my job here seriously and would never reveal our secrets to a competitor. It wouldn't be right for me to break confidentiality of my former employer, just like I'd never violate your trust."
For myself, I like to learn new things, expanding my knowledge and experience with each job. For that reason, I'm unlikely to ever go work for a direct competitor. Instead, I'll move from working on the security of Rackspace's network to a new job working on making sure the F-35 doesn't get hacked. I'll expand my knowledge, and since it's not a direct competitor, trade secrets from my old job won't be much of an issue.
Take any of those long cross-country trips you're talking about with a lot of highway miles and you're probably going to come across at least one place where the road is under construction, probably several. Often enough, that's out in the boonies where there isn't a continuous feeder, so there is a detour through the town square - exactly the kinds of situations automated systems can't deal with are going to happen. Drive across several states and very likely part of the journey is going to be through a snowstorm or downpour. Not just on SOME trips, which would be a deal killer, but on MOST cross-country trips you'll run into one or more of these things.
We used the setting in GitHub to automatically require peer review before a change can be merged. That's the only reason we now have peer review consistently. It was spotty until we made it an automatic requirement.
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
It isn't, and they're not the same. Nothing you've written here bears any resemblance to reality or truth. What you've written is a very self-serving piece of bullshit. An algorithm is not a machine
Browse through chapter 1 and maybe chapter 2 of the Computer Science 101 textbook and get back to me on that.
In later chapters you'll learn that any algorithm written in what's called a "regular language" is equivalent to a category of machines called a finite-state machine. You can draw the machine showing it's parts pictorially, or describe them with code. Tools are available to translate from one representation to the other.
You'll also learn that any algorithm written in a recursively enumerable Language is a Turing machine. You can draw the parts of the machine, or describe them with code. Either way represents the same machine. You'll need these definitions because in CS 202 you'll learn how to design and construction finite state machines. You'll want to know whether your algorithm is in that category. For example, any algorithm/machine that parses Perl-compatible regular expressions isn't finite-state, simply because Perl has extended REs to no longer be regular. They are irregular, and therefore require a Turing machine.
You'll learn that your computer is a certain type of Turing machine, called a Von Neumann machine, implemented as microcode in the CPU. In later CS courses, you might work on implementing precisely the same machine that the microcode implements, except in user land code like Virtual box does. Alternatively, you can take the class about implementing that same Von Neumann machine entirely in silicon, like some early CPUs did.
Anyway, read a few pages about the topic and get back to me.
"Fixing" these will go on forever, probably, because there are all kinds of side channels enabled by the fact that modern CPUs use many different optimizations. They aren't the simple machines they look like from the software side. Disabling all of those optimizations would have a significant impact on performance.
Modern processors switch between various modes a million times per second. One way to get the best of both security and performance would be to have a security mode, in which all caches and such are either disabled or cleared upon entering or leaving security mode. The CPU would run as a much simpler implementation, maybe roughly akin to a 286 in complexity, which would increase security while it's computing a cryptographic hash or whatever. It would be slower during those few milliseconds, so a cryptographic operation might take 4 milliseconds instead of 2 milliseconds. Standard high performance mode would then be restored, with caches cleared, while you edit video or do other CPU-intensive tasks.
I think of it similar to Windows Safe Mode - only essential functions are enabled, so it's unlikely anything will break.
I once had a computer that was used *only* to store credit card information in order to bill customers monthly. I could permanently set that computer to safe mode all the time. Most desktops would switch to safe mode for only a few milliseconds at a time, as signaled by either applications which wish to execute a critical function, or possibly automatically by the CPU when certain instructions indicate sensitive operations may be in progress.
What I just said may not be clear. One time I saw an ad like that. It was referencing losing a different channel. If I'm watching the History Channel, I probably don't care about whether OWN is available or not. So don't tell me "you could lose the Oprah Winfrey Network" with an ad on History.
On the other hand, if I'm watching History, I probably do care whether History is available. I do want to know in that case.
For me, there are about three cable channels we use in my house, and only one that personally tune to. If that channel were likely to disappear because the company I pay to get it is going to stop carrying it, that's relevant to me. I would want to know of I was losing the one channel I watch.
Currently in the US, to be patentable, an invention must be new (novel), useful, produce something useful for a particular purpose, and not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Obviousness is not in retrospect - the question whether a practitioner who hadn't seen the patent would do it that way, NOT whether, after having read the patent, they'd say "oh yeah, that makes sense".
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
A microchip is similarly a machine made of very many transistors. A new chip may do a new thing, with a new machine built by arranging transistors differently. When people design a new microchip, they don't draw a picture showing where all the transistors should be. Instead, they write CODE describing the machine. Software then analyzes that code and the output is one of the several arrangements of transistors that can be used to implement that machine. Several different arrangements can implement the same machine - putting this group of transistors on the top vs the bottom doesn't change the design and function of the machine. The machine, then, is defined by the code.
What language is that code written in? What language is used to create the machine? It can be Verilog, a language designed for that purpose. It can also be C, the language operating systems and a lot of application software is written in. A cool and useful thing about that is that prior to render the machine as transistors, the designer can run the machine as software. If it does the right thing when run as software, it is guaranteed to do the same thing when rendered as silicon, because it's the same machine.
The same machine, the same invention, can be "printed" issuing silicon or bits stored on the hard drive.
Did you even read my post before replying to it? Where did I say anything about protectionist tariffs? How exactly did I frame it as a bad thing? When I said the cultures "complement one another", when I mentioned the "synergy".
Your rabid advocacy seems to be detrimental to your literacy.
As far as what's ideal, you wouldn't want doctors building cabinets while carpenters diagnose disease. Each should do what they are good at. It's the same with countries. Ideally, each country should do the things that they do better than other countries.
As I mentioned, over the last century (or two), the US has been good at inventing new things and engineering new things. Because we're good at that, we should do a lot of that.
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented. BASF is in Germany.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable in the US is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that uses math is unpatentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that uses math", saying "you can't patent math". That's the same as saying nobody could ever patent an elevator because "you can't patent physics".
You can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique for load balancing across a world-wide network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that can be described in mathematical terms isn't patentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the
incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that can be described in mathematical terms", saying "you can't patent math". That's not really true - you can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique load balancing across a world-class network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
I wonder if maybe that's why the summary said "The research builds off of a longstanding project at CSAIL lead by Katabi".
In 2013 they could detect that a person (or person-sized object) was present. Now they have a stick figure showing what the person is doing, the positions of their head, arms and legs, along with a clear path on how to see finger movements and such.
> The Chinese will soon be *better* at making bicycles than the west, simply because they do it. Same with robots, there will soon be far more in China than in the USA, and thus far more expertise.
Experience is one thing. Another parameter is that US culture is very unusual in a particular way, or really two related things. Co-workers from other countries have told me it's a bit hard to get used to working in the US because of this cultural difference.
In most cultures, including China, when someone shows up to work the company does things a certain way, and it's very often the Chinese way, the way other companies do it. The employee does their part, according to company procedures. That's good for manufacturing a million identical copies. The US is weird in that we tend, much more than other countries, to do things our own way. The employer wants certain results, of course, but each employee may do things a little differently, perhaps using different tools. Rather than doing everything the traditional way, Americans are looking for that "one weird trick" that makes it better, faster, or cheaper. The employee who comes up with a nifty trick to do it better is called clever, inventive, and praised for their ingenuity. In most cultures that behavior would be odd, inconsistent, and potentially dangerous.
My own workplace is an example - everyone on my team chooses different tools. Even where we have to share a common standard, Git, some of my co-workers use various diff GUIs to work with Git, while I use the command line. The codebase is a mix of programming languages and styles. Heck, some co-workers shine their shoes, some don't wear shoes. An office in China would look, and be, much more consistent, everyone working together, doing it the same way.
China is very good at making a million identical widgets, America invents like no culture before. They compliment each other - the Americans try all kinds of wacky new ideas and when they get a good one, they contract with the Chinese to make a million of them, precisely to specification.
Obviously each culture is different in many ways, with different attitudes and norms having different benefits and drawbacks.
IF we remember where our strength is, the US can continue to be a major and very important part of that synergy. If we lose our individualistic and inventive spirit, well then our workers will be like workers everywhere else, and be competing on wages - and in wages worldwide, only the top 1% make over $25,000 / year or so.
Slashdot Mirror
The end result is that the studyâ(TM)s overall findings are still accurate in one sense: There is a correlation between the Mediterranean diet and better health outcomes. But in another sense, the paper was entirely wrong: the Mediterranean diet does not cause better health outcomes. ...
A major study in 2017 found that if you adjusted for income, the diet doesnâ(TM)t actually improve heart health: Only wealthy people get the cardiovascular benefits of the Mediterranean diet. ...
UN data show that people in Mediterranean European countries are more likely to be overweight
Here we're talking about a handgun. In a handgun, approximately half of the forward energy is in the projectile, so without a muzzle brake the shooter would absorb twice as much energy as the target.
Not that hardly anyone uses a muzzle brake on a handgun, but let's suppose someone does. At handgun pressures, the muzzle brake might reduce recoil by 10%-15%. So through the grip, the shooter feels 185% of the energy that the target gets.
Suppose a perfect muzzle brake which redirects all of the excess up and sideways (we assume here it doesn't direct the muzzle flash back into the shooters face.) That perfect muzzle brake would eliminate the excess recoil due to the gases being expelled, leaving the projectile as the only source of recoil. The recoil delivered to the shooter would then be exactly equal to the energy delivered to the target, plus the energy the projectile loses to air resistance. The recoil is still higher than the energy of the projectile.
As to you and your friend, a very good muzzle brake, under the right conditions on a high velocity rifle, can reduce recoil energy by about 50%. In other words, in the best case, it can reduce 6000 Joule to 3000. So that's odd. However, different guns can also deliver that energy over a different period of time. 6000 Joule would be a massage if delivered over a sufficiently long period of time.
Poking a hole in someone's spinal cord, heart, or certain parts of the brain will kill them. Other that, doctors intentionally remove lungs, kidneys, etc, to make someone's life better in some cases. Poking a hole in one is unlikely to kill someone.
Real life shootings are very, very different from movies. Getting shot doesn't knock you back either. You may recall Newton's third law says the force backward on the person shooting is at least equal to the force of the bullet. Actually the person shooting gets a significantly greater force than person shot - the gases come out of the barrel with significant energy that wasn't transferred to the bullet. The person shooting gets "knocked backward" with about twice as much energy as the person shot (half inch vs quarter inch).
Because the worst possible situation, for everyone, is that the file has a random mix of PascalCase, camelCase,.lowercase, and under_scores. Every time you use an identifier you have to look at which casing is used for each identifier. Choosing ANY formatting style is better than not choosing one. Better for everyone.
Nope, as I said, we're talking about trade secrets.
I provided the link to the definition.
Did your old company teach you how to read?
Just for fun, I'm going to make a guess - you went to public school in California or Washington state, didn't you?
> We do prosecute copyright though, but just because we do doesn't mean we should.
I find it interesting you said "prosecute", rather than saying it shouldn't be a crime. I would say that we should prosecute large-scale criminal activity, especially criminal enterprises - crime for money. If you think it should be perfectly illegal to run a company ripping off other people's work, say that. It doesn't make sense to say "it's a crime, well not really, it's never prosecuted".
> Any more than we should prosecute smoking Pot.
The more accurate analogy would be a pot farm, or large smuggling operation. They don't prosecute small-scale copyright infringement where nobody is even selling anything. As mentioned in my post, considerations for prosecution include:
Size and scale of the operation
Financial aspects (are they doing millions of dollars in unlawful sales)
Criminal history of the offender
Culpability of each offender
> it's unreasonable to suggest that a person in one company who gets hired by another would ... refuse to pass that information
Remind me to never hire you. Or trust you in any way - as a friend, co-worker, etc. You might fit in well at one of the Clinton organizations, though. Anyway, you can think the law is unreasonable, but that doesn't change what the law is.
> Ie rank and file should not expect to change jobs to master their skill. They should expect to be a jack of all trades and probably a master of none.
You don't master a field by repeatedly looking at it from the same angle, staying in an echo chamber where you're never exposed to other points of view, especially from people in different but related fields, and doing the same thing the same way over and over again. Doing the same job over and over again, the same way, is the domain of robots. It's how you set yourself up to be automated away.
To master a field, you learn all different aspects of it. You apply it in different ways. You learn from people in other fields. For example, part of what I do is software quality, trying to make sure defects don't manifest in production. To help master that, I did a study of how airplane mechanics avoid having defects manifest in flight. Airplane engines are completely torn apart and rebuilt every 1,800 hours, so there is plenty of opportunity for error in rebuilding, assembly, and tuning, but airplane mechanics have a very low rate of defects affecting flight. How? Learning the answer helps me master my field of producing top quality, robust, reliable software.
> Is it less of an issue because you're less likely to ever use trade secrets in your new job or that copying ideas into a different field with a non-competitor is less likely to get your sued/arrested? That last point speaks nothing about ethics
Both. The new company is less likely to have any need of secrets about security scanning, AND they don't care if Lockheed Martin uses some of the same techniques, because they aren't competing with Lockheed. It IS ethically different because you can't have an ethical violation without a victim. If the old company doesn't particularly care whether I share the information, there's no ethical problem.
I agree CONSISTENT style is more important than any specific style choice. Whether you want to coddle your braces or not, pick one and stick to it.
On our team, we have a Git hook that runs an appropriate *-tidy, so when code os committed it's automatically formatted according to our team's standard for whichever language, which is generally the same as what most people use in that language. Write code using any formatting you want - it'll be automatically be made consistent before other people need to read it.
Have you never seen the FBI Warning at the beginning of every DVD or VHS? The FBI is part of DOJ.
There are both civil and criminal copyright statues, very much like you can sue someone for taking your money in order to try to get some of it back, and the government can prosecute theft criminally. Just this week in the news a major star was suing their manager for allegedly stealing the celebrity's money. That civil suit, to recover the money, doesn't bar criminal prosecution if in fact a crime was committed.
Most copyright cases can be adequately handled by a civil case, and the FBI doesn't spend their resources on it if a civil suit will do instead. The FBI can and does criminally prosecute when the criminal activity justifies prosecution based on:
The scale and seriousness of the offense(s)
Criminal history of the offender(s)
Culpability of each offender
Availability of civil remedies
Likely outcome of the case
Whether the offender has simply ignored prior civil judgements
Other factors specific to each case
Page 7 of this document has an article for FBI agents on this topic:
https://www.justice.gov/usao/f...
Employees can do a couple of things to avoid a criminal (and unethical) act when they go to work for a competitor:
Before leaving, don't artificially access or store secrets that you don't already know. Especially, don't FRAUDULENTLY gain access to secrets that aren't part of your job requirements.
Don't tell your new company secrets from your old company. What is a secret? Basically, it's anything the old company makes an effort to keep confidential.
If you do reveal secrets, some people at the new company might like that, and some more insightful people may recognize that means you'll still THEIR secrets to the next company, so you can't be trusted. Sometimes it might make sense to say something like "I take my job here seriously and would never reveal our secrets to a competitor. It wouldn't be right for me to break confidentiality of my former employer, just like I'd never violate your trust."
For myself, I like to learn new things, expanding my knowledge and experience with each job. For that reason, I'm unlikely to ever go work for a direct competitor. Instead, I'll move from working on the security of Rackspace's network to a new job working on making sure the F-35 doesn't get hacked. I'll expand my knowledge, and since it's not a direct competitor, trade secrets from my old job won't be much of an issue.
This is the relevant criminal law, on the federal side:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
The definition of Trade Secret is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/de...
The acts in the indictment occurred in 2015.
Can one be charged with a crime after the victim is gone?
Every murder case ever says yes.
Handling outage on production caused by code defect:
2 support people @ 0.5 hour
2 ops people @ 1 hour
1 developer @ 1 hour
1 mid-manager @ 0.5 hour
1 exec @ 0.5 hour (to keep asking what's going on)
Total: 5 man hours during the incident.
The after incident review is roughly the same, including preparation time.
Grand total: 10 man hours
Peer review: 1 developer @ 0.25 hours
Where I'm from, 0.25 is less than 10.
Peer review is one of the best ways of "gaining speed and reduce people needed".
Take any of those long cross-country trips you're talking about with a lot of highway miles and you're probably going to come across at least one place where the road is under construction, probably several. Often enough, that's out in the boonies where there isn't a continuous feeder, so there is a detour through the town square - exactly the kinds of situations automated systems can't deal with are going to happen. Drive across several states and very likely part of the journey is going to be through a snowstorm or downpour. Not just on SOME trips, which would be a deal killer, but on MOST cross-country trips you'll run into one or more of these things.
> Automagically usually means no peer review
We used the setting in GitHub to automatically require peer review before a change can be merged. That's the only reason we now have peer review consistently. It was spotty until we made it an automatic requirement.
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
It isn't, and they're not the same. Nothing you've written here bears any resemblance to reality or truth. What you've written is a very self-serving piece of bullshit. An algorithm is not a machine
Browse through chapter 1 and maybe chapter 2 of the Computer Science 101 textbook and get back to me on that.
In later chapters you'll learn that any algorithm written in what's called a "regular language" is equivalent to a category of machines called a finite-state machine. You can draw the machine showing it's parts pictorially, or describe them with code. Tools are available to translate from one representation to the other.
You'll also learn that any algorithm written in a recursively enumerable Language is a Turing machine. You can draw the parts of the machine, or describe them with code. Either way represents the same machine. You'll need these definitions because in CS 202 you'll learn how to design and construction finite state machines. You'll want to know whether your algorithm is in that category. For example, any algorithm/machine that parses Perl-compatible regular expressions isn't finite-state, simply because Perl has extended REs to no longer be regular. They are irregular, and therefore require a Turing machine.
You'll learn that your computer is a certain type of Turing machine, called a Von Neumann machine, implemented as microcode in the CPU. In later CS courses, you might work on implementing precisely the same machine that the microcode implements, except in user land code like Virtual box does. Alternatively, you can take the class about implementing that same Von Neumann machine entirely in silicon, like some early CPUs did.
Anyway, read a few pages about the topic and get back to me.
"Fixing" these will go on forever, probably, because there are all kinds of side channels enabled by the fact that modern CPUs use many different optimizations. They aren't the simple machines they look like from the software side. Disabling all of those optimizations would have a significant impact on performance.
Modern processors switch between various modes a million times per second. One way to get the best of both security and performance would be to have a security mode, in which all caches and such are either disabled or cleared upon entering or leaving security mode. The CPU would run as a much simpler implementation, maybe roughly akin to a 286 in complexity, which would increase security while it's computing a cryptographic hash or whatever. It would be slower during those few milliseconds, so a cryptographic operation might take 4 milliseconds instead of 2 milliseconds. Standard high performance mode would then be restored, with caches cleared, while you edit video or do other CPU-intensive tasks.
I think of it similar to Windows Safe Mode - only essential functions are enabled, so it's unlikely anything will break.
I once had a computer that was used *only* to store credit card information in order to bill customers monthly. I could permanently set that computer to safe mode all the time. Most desktops would switch to safe mode for only a few milliseconds at a time, as signaled by either applications which wish to execute a critical function, or possibly automatically by the CPU when certain instructions indicate sensitive operations may be in progress.
What I just said may not be clear. One time I saw an ad like that. It was referencing losing a different channel. If I'm watching the History Channel, I probably don't care about whether OWN is available or not. So don't tell me "you could lose the Oprah Winfrey Network" with an ad on History.
On the other hand, if I'm watching History, I probably do care whether History is available. I do want to know in that case.
For me, there are about three cable channels we use in my house, and only one that personally tune to. If that channel were likely to disappear because the company I pay to get it is going to stop carrying it, that's relevant to me. I would want to know of I was losing the one channel I watch.
Currently in the US, to be patentable, an invention must be new (novel), useful, produce something useful for a particular purpose, and not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Obviousness is not in retrospect - the question whether a practitioner who hadn't seen the patent would do it that way, NOT whether, after having read the patent, they'd say "oh yeah, that makes sense".
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
A microchip is similarly a machine made of very many transistors. A new chip may do a new thing, with a new machine built by arranging transistors differently. When people design a new microchip, they don't draw a picture showing where all the transistors should be. Instead, they write CODE describing the machine. Software then analyzes that code and the output is one of the several arrangements of transistors that can be used to implement that machine. Several different arrangements can implement the same machine - putting this group of transistors on the top vs the bottom doesn't change the design and function of the machine. The machine, then, is defined by the code.
What language is that code written in? What language is used to create the machine? It can be Verilog, a language designed for that purpose. It can also be C, the language operating systems and a lot of application software is written in. A cool and useful thing about that is that prior to render the machine as transistors, the designer can run the machine as software. If it does the right thing when run as software, it is guaranteed to do the same thing when rendered as silicon, because it's the same machine.
The same machine, the same invention, can be "printed" issuing silicon or bits stored on the hard drive.
Did you even read my post before replying to it? Where did I say anything about protectionist tariffs? How exactly did I frame it as a bad thing? When I said the cultures "complement one another", when I mentioned the "synergy".
Your rabid advocacy seems to be detrimental to your literacy.
As far as what's ideal, you wouldn't want doctors building cabinets while carpenters diagnose disease. Each should do what they are good at. It's the same with countries. Ideally, each country should do the things that they do better than other countries.
As I mentioned, over the last century (or two), the US has been good at inventing new things and engineering new things. Because we're good at that, we should do a lot of that.
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented. BASF is in Germany.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable in the US is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that uses math is unpatentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that uses math", saying "you can't patent math". That's the same as saying nobody could ever patent an elevator because "you can't patent physics".
You can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique for load balancing across a world-wide network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that can be described in mathematical terms isn't patentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the
incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that can be described in mathematical terms", saying "you can't patent math". That's not really true - you can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique load balancing across a world-class network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
I wonder if maybe that's why the summary said "The research builds off of a longstanding project at CSAIL lead by Katabi".
In 2013 they could detect that a person (or person-sized object) was present. Now they have a stick figure showing what the person is doing, the positions of their head, arms and legs, along with a clear path on how to see finger movements and such.
> The Chinese will soon be *better* at making bicycles than the west, simply because they do it. Same with robots, there will soon be far more in China than in the USA, and thus far more expertise.
Experience is one thing. Another parameter is that US culture is very unusual in a particular way, or really two related things. Co-workers from other countries have told me it's a bit hard to get used to working in the US because of this cultural difference.
In most cultures, including China, when someone shows up to work the company does things a certain way, and it's very often the Chinese way, the way other companies do it. The employee does their part, according to company procedures. That's good for manufacturing a million identical copies. The US is weird in that we tend, much more than other countries, to do things our own way. The employer wants certain results, of course, but each employee may do things a little differently, perhaps using different tools. Rather than doing everything the traditional way, Americans are looking for that "one weird trick" that makes it better, faster, or cheaper. The employee who comes up with a nifty trick to do it better is called clever, inventive, and praised for their ingenuity. In most cultures that behavior would be odd, inconsistent, and potentially dangerous.
My own workplace is an example - everyone on my team chooses different tools. Even where we have to share a common standard, Git, some of my co-workers use various diff GUIs to work with Git, while I use the command line. The codebase is a mix of programming languages and styles. Heck, some co-workers shine their shoes, some don't wear shoes. An office in China would look, and be, much more consistent, everyone working together, doing it the same way.
China is very good at making a million identical widgets, America invents like no culture before. They compliment each other - the Americans try all kinds of wacky new ideas and when they get a good one, they contract with the Chinese to make a million of them, precisely to specification.
Obviously each culture is different in many ways, with different attitudes and norms having different benefits and drawbacks.
IF we remember where our strength is, the US can continue to be a major and very important part of that synergy. If we lose our individualistic and inventive spirit, well then our workers will be like workers everywhere else, and be competing on wages - and in wages worldwide, only the top 1% make over $25,000 / year or so.