There's a reason these are called "customary" units. They were contrived to be convenient for highly specialized and closely related tasks.
For example a rod was the typical length of a medieval ox-goad. If you laid out a line 40 rods long, you've got a furlong, which is about the length of furrow a man with a single ox could plow without giving his animal a rest. If you lay out a rectangle 1 furlong by four rods, you have an acre, which is about what he could plow in a day.
Customary units are far more convenient for the tasks they're optimized for. But it's the modern need to do more complex calculations relating things across problem domains that makes them awkward.
It's early yet, but I think we'll eventually link social media and gaming related problems in ways we haven't even thought of yet.
We are deeply social animals, but we have created artificial systems which mediate our interactions with each other and in some cases, supplant them. That's an enormous change for us, but the hallmark of our species is behavioral diversity; that's what allows human populations to adapt. So it's almost a certainty that with a change of this magnitudesome of us will do just fine and others will develop problems.
Killing Benigno Aquino is what toppled Marcos' regime. I actually met Aquino when he was an MIT fellow. My first reaction when I heard he was going back was "Marcos will have him killed." Doing it before Aquino even got off the tarmac was a mistake; he should have met with an "accident". But then that was only the culmination of a whole train of mistakes, which started by allowing a young, charismatic politician to become the focus of opposition hopes.
So your analogy doesn't really work. The lesson for a tyrant is don't let your opponents become publicly notable. Keep people you can't trust inside the country where you can watch them and restrict them effectively. If they do manage leave the country, don't let them back in, or even adopt the pretense that they're free to return. Kill them while they are *languishing* in exile with no prospect of return. These are all lessons the DPRK has followed assiduously.
Practice makes perfect applies to tyranny as much as anything else, you just can't be half-hearted or half-assed about it.
Frankly, this kind of misuse of the term "nazi" only serves to dilute the meaning of that term.
"More than you like" is not tantamount to mis-use. Someone who is inspired by Nazi ideology or imagery is at least a "neo-nazi" by any reasonable standard. And in the context of this article, it's entirely appropriate: Neo-nazi groups are groups that the researcher in question has tracked. If this were the 1960s the flavor of the decade would have been "Maoist", but we live in an era where Naziism is making a comeback, and people are tracking it.
As for your keyword count, it's almost laughably naive. Most software articles don't have "programming" in the title, nor do many linux-related articles invoke "linux".
If you focus on marriage as an emotional institution. As an economic institution you've got a lot of dependents -- you either let them die, develop some kind of state welfare system, or you find a way to patch them into the only support system your society has: family.
I warned my liberal friends back in 2008: Obama isn't some kind of leftist firebrand. He's a center-left moderate who will govern somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon, because basically he's a 60s era Republican "moderate".
Liberals couldn't get over Obama's penchant for drone strikes; Obama never pursued an idealistic foreign policy which was ruled by *values*, although he talked a good game. He used military force freely to maintain the international status quo.
On the environment he was unreliable. Yes, he expanded some protected areas, but he also quietly but aggressively promoted fracking and expanded domestic oil production -- to the point where the US is expected to become a net energy exporter soon. Again foreign policy was a driver; not only did Obama take America to the brink of energy independence, he also greatly curtailed Russian military spending by strangling their energy-based economy; by becoming a gas exporter the US also limited Russia's use of natural gas supply as leverage over Europe. This is why Putin hated Obama and Clinton so much.
And his landmark health care reform? It was originally developed by Republican think tanks for Bob Dole's presidential campaign -- right down to the individual mandate. It not only maintained private health care delivery, it propped up the private insurance industry. It didn't even *have* a public option, which was the party left wing's line in the sand. He basically ignored them.
But while policy-wise Obama pursued stability and continuity, politically he represented change, because of his race. It's kind of the flip side of the "only Nixon can go to China".
In a polygamous society war can produce a surplus of women. It certainly produces widows and orphans, which in a society with no state social welfare programs and limited economic opportunity for women is a huge problem.
Polygamy is also a way to establish dynastic ties between potential rival groups.
Well, are you talking about acute radiation sickness or cancer?
Some workers at Fukushima were exposed to over 200 mSv of ionizing radiation, which is well below the level where you'd expect to see acute symptoms but well above the proverbial cross country flight. There is significant scientific uncertainty as to whether the so-called "LNT" (linear-no-threshold) model of radiation exposure risk has any validity for dosages under 100 mSv.
In a nutshell, a cumulative 200 mSv exposures from a 100 cross country flights probably won't have the same effect on your cancer risk as a single 200 mSv exposure.
At present 1 worker has suffered a cancer which the Japanese government has ruled as Fukushima-linked. This is not something of course any can truly know with total certainty; it's a preponderance of evidence situation.
Of course you have to put this in context. Workers routinely die on major civil engineering projects; this is something you have to factor into your cost-benefit calculations. Statistically if there are a handful of deaths or health problems linked to Fukushima radiation, it's not outside the level of harm you'd accept for building, operating, and eventually decommissioning such a facility. However it overstates the case to say nobody has been harmed. Even having to subject yourself to more frequent cancer screening is a form of harm, so long as the screening is reasonably warranted.
You're acting almost as if when you wish someone a happy or merry something you actually want them to experience some kind of positive emotion. What does that do for you?
Every greeting in the month of December should be approached as a skirmish in the culture wars. You don't want people you greet to come away from an encounter with you feeling good, your aim should be to break their morale.
I do not think the system was actually "fooled" It was taught the wrong thing.
Well on principle the solution is simple then: only teach the system the right thing. Just as in programming you can avoid bugs by not making mistakes.
Like feeling a terrible pain in all the diodes on your left side? Or deciding that your human colleagues are jeopardizing your mission and need to be eliminated.
If you don't have a use for watches or like them, don't wear them.
The advent of smartphones has changed my watch preferences too. I don't care for complications like alarms or stopwatches; those things are better done on phones so I prefer watches that do fewer things well. This runs current to fashion in the low end of the market, where watches have gotten ridiculously large, heavy, and cluttered. No wonder people prefer to take their phones out of their pockets to check the time.
I prefer watches that are small, light, and legible, with nothing on them that isn't frequently used. If I were a billionaire, I'd wear something like this. But you don't have spend that much to get something which gets things right because it doesn't do too much. The less you do, the less likely you are to get it wrong.
The big problem with cheap watch comfort is the terrible bands they ship with. Upgrading the band will always fix this, unless you have something really strange going on with the watch head (e.g. like one dive watch head which, when I weighed, it tipped the scales at over 220 grams -- half a pound!).
Cheap resin bands don't breathe and cut into your wrist, although they can be surprisingly comfortable when you use it with very, very light watch head. Classic el-cheapo Casios come to mind. If the watch weighs nothing, then it's easy to make it comfortable.
Many people like silicone bands, and they're quite comfortable when you first put them on, but they cause skin irritation or even rashes if they aren't regularly removed and carefully cleaned. Therefore I don't recommend them.
Metal bands vary from fiendishly uncomfortable to almost perfect. The very worst are the old school "twist-o-flex" bands -- those are almost sadistic. Otherwise, the more flexibly a metal band wraps around a tight curve the more comfortable. Some of Seiko's dive watch bands are outstanding, but probably the ultimate cheap band for comfort would be a metal mesh band.
Nylon bands also vary from horrible to nearly perfect. Cheap nylon bands are sometimes very thin, or very stiff, and these bands can feel like they're cutting your wrist. A high quality nylon band is very comfortable. I like so-called "NATO" bands (actually more correctly called G10 bands) although they have a slight learning curve and aren't compatible with heart rate monitors. I favor an extra long NATO, which can be wrapped around the outside of a coat sleeve (or a wetsuit if you're a secret agent).
Any watch band will be uncomfortable if it gets dirt or salt trapped under it. That probably makes a fine metal mesh band the best choice if comfort is your #1 priority. A lot of the shmutz ends up inside the mesh rather than rubbing against your skin. If you occasionaly rinse the band out you're OK.
I've thought about the long-life scenario, which combined with substantial memory storage would give you a huge leg up on the still incredibly daunting task of interstellar travel in a universe where Special Relativity applies. Alternatively, you could imagine a species that is capable, either naturally or artificially, of remaining dormant for thousands of years.
The complication is that -- judging from our experience with Earth creatures -- powerful problem solving abilities are exclusively found in species that live in complex social groups. That seems to give brainpower a major kick. So your spacecraft/spacecrafts would have to be transporting at least the nucleus of a colony to make any sense.
Here's another wrinkle I've considered as an interesting possibility. What if UFOs aren't transporting creatures. What if they *are* creatures. Possibly something like a man/machine fusion produced in some distant future.
If I discovered that my house was haunted that would be the happiest day of my life. I'm at an age where I've lost a number of people I love, and a genuine haunting would be proof that there might be some part of them still out there beyond what I carry in my memory.
I agree the haunting shows are just as silly, but they don't annoy me quite so much because they're so outrageously theatrical. UFO shows are so pompously pedantic.
Sure, and buying walnuts from a farmer you know is bound to cost a lot less than getting them in a can at the supermarket. You've cut out all the distributing middle-men.
Now local co-op beef here in my urban northeast city generally runs about $12/lb vs. about $9/lb for supermarket beef. That's because we're not in "meat country".
Every so often I'll make the mistake of starting to watch one, because the idea is intriguing. And every time I do that, every single time it pisses me off.
These things piss me off because I really, really want it to be true. I want to believe we can make contact with alien civilizations; that FTL travel is not only possible, but practical. That we might someday look on the galaxy as sixteenth century explorers looked at our planet.
Consequently stupid, credulous bullshit really pisses me off. I can't even abide unwarranted leaps of faith. All I ask for is one incident, just one, thoroughly and critically investigated, in which nobody is able to come up with a terrestrial explanation good enough for skeptic.
There's grass-fed beef. It won't satisfy people who don't eat meat for ethical reasons, but it does have less environmental impact than feedlot fattened beef.
On the other hand it's leaner, and the flavor is different and takes some getting used to. It also take somewhat more land to grow a set number of pounds of beef -- although that land isn't cultivated. Also the USDA has stopped attempting to police the term "grass fed" so you can't quite be sure whether you're actually getting grass-finished beef now. All beef cattle forage for grass at some point in their lives so you could be getting anything.
That means going with meat from a local farmer -- which is terrific in terms of quality and environmental impact, but costs a lot more on a per-pound basis.
On the other other hand consuming less of higher quality meat is probably a good thing. You don't really need that much protein. Practically everyone could probably manage an upgrade in culinary quality, healthiness and environmental impact at the same time, but it would take some thought and adjustment.
The point of AI is to make a computer think and learn like a human, not to prove that a computer can beat a human.
Well, that's one possible point of AI. Other possible goals would be to generate better results, or good-enough results but much more cheaply. Yes, there have always been people who have hoped to shed light on human intelligence by creating machine intelligence, but by in large they haven't had as much to show for their efforts as people trying to improve on people in some way (performance or cost).
Well, there's two distinct populations an Ivy League school: the well connected and the really, really smart. In fact arguably the whole point of the Ivy League is for the social elite to borrow some of the prestige of the intellectual elite. For that to work, though, you have to serve both communities.
Nobody is being forced to install the Linux subsystem for Windows. Only people who want it. For me it makes Windows a lot more tolerable, and it means I don't have to give up my familiar tools when I boot into that environment.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a reason these are called "customary" units. They were contrived to be convenient for highly specialized and closely related tasks.
For example a rod was the typical length of a medieval ox-goad. If you laid out a line 40 rods long, you've got a furlong, which is about the length of furrow a man with a single ox could plow without giving his animal a rest. If you lay out a rectangle 1 furlong by four rods, you have an acre, which is about what he could plow in a day.
Customary units are far more convenient for the tasks they're optimized for. But it's the modern need to do more complex calculations relating things across problem domains that makes them awkward.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of idiot-fanboyism. This is basically a somewhat less sterile term for authoritarianism.
It's early yet, but I think we'll eventually link social media and gaming related problems in ways we haven't even thought of yet.
We are deeply social animals, but we have created artificial systems which mediate our interactions with each other and in some cases, supplant them. That's an enormous change for us, but the hallmark of our species is behavioral diversity; that's what allows human populations to adapt. So it's almost a certainty that with a change of this magnitudesome of us will do just fine and others will develop problems.
Killing Benigno Aquino is what toppled Marcos' regime. I actually met Aquino when he was an MIT fellow. My first reaction when I heard he was going back was "Marcos will have him killed." Doing it before Aquino even got off the tarmac was a mistake; he should have met with an "accident". But then that was only the culmination of a whole train of mistakes, which started by allowing a young, charismatic politician to become the focus of opposition hopes.
So your analogy doesn't really work. The lesson for a tyrant is don't let your opponents become publicly notable. Keep people you can't trust inside the country where you can watch them and restrict them effectively. If they do manage leave the country, don't let them back in, or even adopt the pretense that they're free to return. Kill them while they are *languishing* in exile with no prospect of return. These are all lessons the DPRK has followed assiduously.
Practice makes perfect applies to tyranny as much as anything else, you just can't be half-hearted or half-assed about it.
No one in normal, every day usage uses the term, "fiat cash".
s/in normal,/normal in/
Frankly, this kind of misuse of the term "nazi" only serves to dilute the meaning of that term.
"More than you like" is not tantamount to mis-use. Someone who is inspired by Nazi ideology or imagery is at least a "neo-nazi" by any reasonable standard. And in the context of this article, it's entirely appropriate: Neo-nazi groups are groups that the researcher in question has tracked. If this were the 1960s the flavor of the decade would have been "Maoist", but we live in an era where Naziism is making a comeback, and people are tracking it.
As for your keyword count, it's almost laughably naive. Most software articles don't have "programming" in the title, nor do many linux-related articles invoke "linux".
If you focus on marriage as an emotional institution. As an economic institution you've got a lot of dependents -- you either let them die, develop some kind of state welfare system, or you find a way to patch them into the only support system your society has: family.
I warned my liberal friends back in 2008: Obama isn't some kind of leftist firebrand. He's a center-left moderate who will govern somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon, because basically he's a 60s era Republican "moderate".
Liberals couldn't get over Obama's penchant for drone strikes; Obama never pursued an idealistic foreign policy which was ruled by *values*, although he talked a good game. He used military force freely to maintain the international status quo.
On the environment he was unreliable. Yes, he expanded some protected areas, but he also quietly but aggressively promoted fracking and expanded domestic oil production -- to the point where the US is expected to become a net energy exporter soon. Again foreign policy was a driver; not only did Obama take America to the brink of energy independence, he also greatly curtailed Russian military spending by strangling their energy-based economy; by becoming a gas exporter the US also limited Russia's use of natural gas supply as leverage over Europe. This is why Putin hated Obama and Clinton so much.
And his landmark health care reform? It was originally developed by Republican think tanks for Bob Dole's presidential campaign -- right down to the individual mandate. It not only maintained private health care delivery, it propped up the private insurance industry. It didn't even *have* a public option, which was the party left wing's line in the sand. He basically ignored them.
But while policy-wise Obama pursued stability and continuity, politically he represented change, because of his race. It's kind of the flip side of the "only Nixon can go to China".
In a polygamous society war can produce a surplus of women. It certainly produces widows and orphans, which in a society with no state social welfare programs and limited economic opportunity for women is a huge problem.
Polygamy is also a way to establish dynastic ties between potential rival groups.
Well, are you talking about acute radiation sickness or cancer?
Some workers at Fukushima were exposed to over 200 mSv of ionizing radiation, which is well below the level where you'd expect to see acute symptoms but well above the proverbial cross country flight. There is significant scientific uncertainty as to whether the so-called "LNT" (linear-no-threshold) model of radiation exposure risk has any validity for dosages under 100 mSv.
In a nutshell, a cumulative 200 mSv exposures from a 100 cross country flights probably won't have the same effect on your cancer risk as a single 200 mSv exposure.
At present 1 worker has suffered a cancer which the Japanese government has ruled as Fukushima-linked. This is not something of course any can truly know with total certainty; it's a preponderance of evidence situation.
Of course you have to put this in context. Workers routinely die on major civil engineering projects; this is something you have to factor into your cost-benefit calculations. Statistically if there are a handful of deaths or health problems linked to Fukushima radiation, it's not outside the level of harm you'd accept for building, operating, and eventually decommissioning such a facility. However it overstates the case to say nobody has been harmed. Even having to subject yourself to more frequent cancer screening is a form of harm, so long as the screening is reasonably warranted.
You're acting almost as if when you wish someone a happy or merry something you actually want them to experience some kind of positive emotion. What does that do for you?
Every greeting in the month of December should be approached as a skirmish in the culture wars. You don't want people you greet to come away from an encounter with you feeling good, your aim should be to break their morale.
I do not think the system was actually "fooled" It was taught the wrong thing.
Well on principle the solution is simple then: only teach the system the right thing. Just as in programming you can avoid bugs by not making mistakes.
Like feeling a terrible pain in all the diodes on your left side? Or deciding that your human colleagues are jeopardizing your mission and need to be eliminated.
If you don't have a use for watches or like them, don't wear them.
The advent of smartphones has changed my watch preferences too. I don't care for complications like alarms or stopwatches; those things are better done on phones so I prefer watches that do fewer things well. This runs current to fashion in the low end of the market, where watches have gotten ridiculously large, heavy, and cluttered. No wonder people prefer to take their phones out of their pockets to check the time.
I prefer watches that are small, light, and legible, with nothing on them that isn't frequently used. If I were a billionaire, I'd wear something like this. But you don't have spend that much to get something which gets things right because it doesn't do too much. The less you do, the less likely you are to get it wrong.
Watch geek here.
The big problem with cheap watch comfort is the terrible bands they ship with. Upgrading the band will always fix this, unless you have something really strange going on with the watch head (e.g. like one dive watch head which, when I weighed, it tipped the scales at over 220 grams -- half a pound!).
Cheap resin bands don't breathe and cut into your wrist, although they can be surprisingly comfortable when you use it with very, very light watch head. Classic el-cheapo Casios come to mind. If the watch weighs nothing, then it's easy to make it comfortable.
Many people like silicone bands, and they're quite comfortable when you first put them on, but they cause skin irritation or even rashes if they aren't regularly removed and carefully cleaned. Therefore I don't recommend them.
Metal bands vary from fiendishly uncomfortable to almost perfect. The very worst are the old school "twist-o-flex" bands -- those are almost sadistic. Otherwise, the more flexibly a metal band wraps around a tight curve the more comfortable. Some of Seiko's dive watch bands are outstanding, but probably the ultimate cheap band for comfort would be a metal mesh band.
Nylon bands also vary from horrible to nearly perfect. Cheap nylon bands are sometimes very thin, or very stiff, and these bands can feel like they're cutting your wrist. A high quality nylon band is very comfortable. I like so-called "NATO" bands (actually more correctly called G10 bands) although they have a slight learning curve and aren't compatible with heart rate monitors. I favor an extra long NATO, which can be wrapped around the outside of a coat sleeve (or a wetsuit if you're a secret agent).
Any watch band will be uncomfortable if it gets dirt or salt trapped under it. That probably makes a fine metal mesh band the best choice if comfort is your #1 priority. A lot of the shmutz ends up inside the mesh rather than rubbing against your skin. If you occasionaly rinse the band out you're OK.
And had serious screen tearing issues. I liked mine well enough otherwise.
I've thought about the long-life scenario, which combined with substantial memory storage would give you a huge leg up on the still incredibly daunting task of interstellar travel in a universe where Special Relativity applies. Alternatively, you could imagine a species that is capable, either naturally or artificially, of remaining dormant for thousands of years.
The complication is that -- judging from our experience with Earth creatures -- powerful problem solving abilities are exclusively found in species that live in complex social groups. That seems to give brainpower a major kick. So your spacecraft/spacecrafts would have to be transporting at least the nucleus of a colony to make any sense.
Here's another wrinkle I've considered as an interesting possibility. What if UFOs aren't transporting creatures. What if they *are* creatures. Possibly something like a man/machine fusion produced in some distant future.
If I discovered that my house was haunted that would be the happiest day of my life. I'm at an age where I've lost a number of people I love, and a genuine haunting would be proof that there might be some part of them still out there beyond what I carry in my memory.
I agree the haunting shows are just as silly, but they don't annoy me quite so much because they're so outrageously theatrical. UFO shows are so pompously pedantic.
Sure, and buying walnuts from a farmer you know is bound to cost a lot less than getting them in a can at the supermarket. You've cut out all the distributing middle-men.
Now local co-op beef here in my urban northeast city generally runs about $12/lb vs. about $9/lb for supermarket beef. That's because we're not in "meat country".
Every so often I'll make the mistake of starting to watch one, because the idea is intriguing. And every time I do that, every single time it pisses me off.
These things piss me off because I really, really want it to be true. I want to believe we can make contact with alien civilizations; that FTL travel is not only possible, but practical. That we might someday look on the galaxy as sixteenth century explorers looked at our planet.
Consequently stupid, credulous bullshit really pisses me off. I can't even abide unwarranted leaps of faith. All I ask for is one incident, just one, thoroughly and critically investigated, in which nobody is able to come up with a terrestrial explanation good enough for skeptic.
There's grass-fed beef. It won't satisfy people who don't eat meat for ethical reasons, but it does have less environmental impact than feedlot fattened beef.
On the other hand it's leaner, and the flavor is different and takes some getting used to. It also take somewhat more land to grow a set number of pounds of beef -- although that land isn't cultivated. Also the USDA has stopped attempting to police the term "grass fed" so you can't quite be sure whether you're actually getting grass-finished beef now. All beef cattle forage for grass at some point in their lives so you could be getting anything.
That means going with meat from a local farmer -- which is terrific in terms of quality and environmental impact, but costs a lot more on a per-pound basis.
On the other other hand consuming less of higher quality meat is probably a good thing. You don't really need that much protein. Practically everyone could probably manage an upgrade in culinary quality, healthiness and environmental impact at the same time, but it would take some thought and adjustment.
The point of AI is to make a computer think and learn like a human, not to prove that a computer can beat a human.
Well, that's one possible point of AI. Other possible goals would be to generate better results, or good-enough results but much more cheaply. Yes, there have always been people who have hoped to shed light on human intelligence by creating machine intelligence, but by in large they haven't had as much to show for their efforts as people trying to improve on people in some way (performance or cost).
Well, there's two distinct populations an Ivy League school: the well connected and the really, really smart. In fact arguably the whole point of the Ivy League is for the social elite to borrow some of the prestige of the intellectual elite. For that to work, though, you have to serve both communities.
Why stop there in your indictment? Remember the bastards took away the Meta key too.
Nobody is being forced to install the Linux subsystem for Windows. Only people who want it. For me it makes Windows a lot more tolerable, and it means I don't have to give up my familiar tools when I boot into that environment.