Freedom of speech does imply meaningful access to an audience of some kind. Now yes, that audience must also have the readily-available freedom to not-listen and I don't think the Bill of Rights guaranteed a particular or captive audience, but an audience, at some level, there must be.
I lost you here.... the first amendment doesn't guarantee _anyone_ has to listen to you - it isn't saying "someone should be able to listen to you", it says "if the government happens to be in your audience, they can't retaliate based only on what you said".
I.E. if you want to go drunkenly shouting [insert extremist position here] propaganda at 3 in the morning in a small town deserted for the winter, and the only one who hears you is the local cop - the first amendment means he can't arrest you just for _what you say_. If you make your own website that says Donald Trump is a pumpkin, and the only person who ever goes there is Donald Trump himself - the first amendment means he can't arrest you just because he doesn't like what you said.
There is _no right to an audience_. A right to an audience would imply an _obligation_ for someone else to listen to you. And the Bill of Rights only creates obligations for the _government_, not for individuals.
I think you just explained why Hyperloop exists:) it may be a decent transportation system for Earth, it would be a great one for the Moon or Mars where the native atmosphere is lower anyways..
I use both(*), because not all indenting is for blocks - sometimes it's for a multiline list/string/dictionary, and for those I usually try to line up the second lines to match where it started in the previous line to look better, and that depends on the length of the function name so isn't always an exact multiple of the tab width.
But I think you can also read from this that people who use spaces may care more about what their code looks like, which usually means they might care a bit more about what their code does as well.
(*), because my IDE converts all the tabs to spaces anyways - yes, I mostly am working in Python.
other people mentioned The Honest Company, which was at one time valued at nearly $2 billion.
will.i.am,
Currently working for Intel (on the side) as their Director of Creative Innovation.
Gwyneth Paltrow
Don't know as much here, business-wise, but she also has mostly got out of acting (afaik) and moved on to business (and it's e-business), see goop.com...
Are these people also benefiting from government handouts, or is that still a thing in China (was it ever)? Is there (was there ever) any kind of medical safety net? This makes a lot more sense if this is the equivalent of a teenager getting a side job while still living in their parents' house - if they already have some of their basic needs met, then this is really for luxuries anyways - lots of people are willing to trading working hard for a higher standard of living, but there's likely to be many others who are willing to trade a lower standard of 'stuff' to get more free time...
They probably figured they would take some vacation... which would reduce this to at least 48 or 49 weeks instead. It looks like they were using 46 weeks as the guideline (as that is what the math works out at).
So, more serious question: what's happening to yahoo finance? It's built-in as a data source in lots of places (e.g. pandas_datareader); what do people typically use for quotes instead today?
The most accurate division I've seen between 'left' and 'right', at least in the US, is the balance between mercy and justice - the left (=Democrats for the purpose of this article) prefers mercy to justice, the right (=Republicans) prefers justice to mercy. Some issues don't fall on this continuum (and many of them end up being about who receives mercy or justice), but a suprising number of them do.
Neither party has a monopoly on overspending, overregulating, corruption, etc. in pursuit of those goals... you will see general guidelines that are different (e.g. R = small government, D=social programs) but both will bend in pursuit of their overall goals... Politics is mostly how this gets worked out in the real world.
Example: Capital Punishment. Ds are the party of eternal hope - if there is any chance that even one killer could be rehabilitated, give them that chance, so it never makes sense to execute someone. Rs are the party of avoiding more victims - giving someone a chance to be rehabilitated, means there is a chance they could kill again. That person's life should not be sacrified for the killer's mercy. Both have merits IMHO. Currently, we balance this by allowing executions, but having them be somewhat rare - out of more than 15,000 murders (including manslaughter) in the US in 2015, there were 28 executions.
I don't know... in my opinion, 'Minority Report' (the short story, not the movie) went out of its way to defend it, even saying that while a conspiracy was trying to discredit pre-crime, it really was only possible to wrongly accuse Anderson because of his unique position. I don't know what PKD intended it to say, but that's how I read it...
- 57.4% of sites reported no CMS - 25% of sites reported WordPress - From the first, 42.6% of sites reported some CMS - WordPress is 25/42.6 = ~58% of all sites that did report
The invisible hand is really just trying to say that the overall economics of the system are an emergent property of what goes on at lower levels... i.e. the price of wheat is a direct result of many individual buy and sell transactions. they just didn't have the concepts to describe it back then.
It is very difficult to find this information. However, it is (sort of) available... i don't know of an actual death rate from vaccines exactly. Even this is hard to find, but there is a federal program (the 'Vaccine Injury Compensation Program') which compensates victims who have been harmed by compulsory vaccinations, and a summary chart of claims, accepted claims, and payouts is here:
I had found a different, more accessible document before, but can't really find it now. Similar information though.
On the other hand, the statistics for the prevalence of diseases that have vaccines for them is much more available, at CDC:
Influenza has the highest compensated total (932 in 8 years). Looking at DTaP might be a better comparison... ~75 million doses in 8 years with 105 compensated cases (including death, but other things too). Combined Diptheria/Tetanus/Pertussis together, the CDC chart only goes to 2011 (so missing a couple years) but it shows no D cases, ~150 or so T cases, and nearly 100,000 P cases over the 7 years in question, with total deaths in that time period: 0 for D, 9 for T, ~18 for P (and none in the last 4 years on the chart, so trend was definitely down).
Would help to have a trend line for the compensated cases too. In any case, the statistics show that as of ~2011, you had a better chance of not dying by not getting the vaccine, but the chance in either case was vanishingly small.
Of course, the issue here is a free rider syndrome - if everyone else gets the vaccine, I can get the benefits (reduced chance of catching a bad disease) while everyone else bears the risks (possible chance of side effects from the vaccine). But if enough people don't get the vaccine, then the numbers change quickly as more people catch the disease.
We vaccinated, but we waited until after age 2 to give their immune system time to build up. Seemed like the best balance.
There's actually a restaurant in my town which reportedly is run, or subsidized somehow, by the Tourism Authority of Thailand. So I guess I'm not too surprised they focus this much on something cuisine-related...
I think the religious part is really a red herring.... it's really more about the hard science vs. psychology, and the black/white politicization of science.
Not unlike the parts of Antifragile where he criticizes the 'Soviet-Harvard complex' for 'teaching birds how to fly' - basically, group makes sweeping assumptions about how the world works, goes through a 'scientific process' with the form but not the substance that validates their claims, and then uses that invalid but sciency-looking result as absolute truth to do societal engineering on a broad scale.
That's not the point... i don't know the details, maybe it's more complicated than this, but as i understand it there are rules about playing X% of canadian content. for a radio station, this means that if there are 24 hours in a day, they may need to play e.g. 10 hours of canadian music and 14 hours of everything else (announcers, commercials, foreign music, etc). And you either listen to it, or don't, but you can guarantee a certain percentage of supply. If you watch or listen to any particular station for any length of time, you'll see or listen to some canadian content.
Netflix doesn't work like that... i say i want to watch X, Y, and Z. if those aren't canadian, what do they realistically want netflix to do? throttle me? pay a tax on every non-canadian item? force the catalog of choices to be X% canadian? ensure that some canadian content is shown (but that's usually based on my watching history... guess it would have to take some additional input)? none of those are really very similar to the content quotas on radio/TV, and are far less effective at promoting Canadian cultural content....
in general, culture is transitioning from a push model to a pull model. There's just not as much room for central control of any kind to meaningfully control it.
Except.... cable companies program what they are going to play. Netflix plays what their subscribers want to see. What are they supposed to do, put up a notice saying 'You can't watch the next episode of "Under the Dome" until you first watch your quota of 3 of these other Canadian shows?'
The rules don't even make sense for the Netflix model.
Computer science _should_ be much more like civil engineering.... a good civil engineer knows how to build the bridge AND understands the physics behind it. Maybe the problem is that if CS IS like physics, there isn't a good analogy to civil engineering... 'computer engineering' exists, but isn't that common, and often is hardware-focused... i guess 'software engineer' would probably be the equivalent, but it's not nearly as common as CS, and unlike a civil engineering degree doesn't cover as well the equivalent of 'physics' usually.
that said, if what you are building is a house and not a bridge, or even if you HAVE a bridge but are just renovating the gate house, you don't need either the physics major _or_ the civil engineer.... construction is more of an apprenticeship model, and maybe some programming shops are more like that...
Well, it might be theoretically possible - but you'd need to get the bits from somewhere.
Think of an ocean wave, and you want to measure the height of the water at a given point in time. But waves on water move in fairly predictable ways, so a single picture will tell you both the height of the water at the time the picture was taken, as well as a good approximation of what it was for a short time before and after the picture.
Another possibility is if there are multiple video streams from the same event, they are probably all 30 fps, but probably didn't catch the exact same samples - overlay them and you may be able to reconstruct a higher-frequency signal.
This doesn't make it an easier problem, or even possible - now, instead of having to capture at a frequency above the nyquist rate, you have to capture video at a resolution that can tell the micro-topology of a potato chip bag from 15 feet away. After all, you have to extract the information from somewhere. But there are ways to get beyond nyquist sometimes.
Another example which feels related but i'm not sure how yet: Roland has a patent on electronic drums. They have a single sensor in the middle of the drum, yet within a quarter-wave of a hit anywhere on the drum, they can tell both that it was hit and how far away from the center it was hit, based on the shape of the wave.
Exactly. It's like if I ran a shop in the 'old' days. You walk in and special-order something, with next-day delivery. I order from the manufacturer and they send it overnight to me, so I can give it to you. But instead of making it easy for FedEx to get the package to me, I charge them to 'rent' my loading dock.
So, in this case they tweaked their algorithm for which posts/what priority they show them for some users. This is probably something they do all the time anyways, so this time, they decided to formalize it and add to the research corpus. Seems reasonable to me.
So, what if this had come out differently. What if it had just been Facebook tweaking their algorithms for 'better user experience', would the outcry be as loud? Isn't that what businesses do all the time? Try things, and see what kind of results they get from them?
You have to present all the posts, and you have to choose an order - you can't 'just show them'. Is this always a moral choice? I suppose they could just pick them randomly, but that's not likely to make their users happier either. Where is the line between ordering for control, and ordering to give a better user experience?
A 'music label' is someone who wants to get paid for their music being in a video on YouTube, and doesn't want it there otherwise.
A lot of this discussion is confusing... but maybe it is for Google as well. After all, this all started because lots of people put up music and videos on YouTube that they didn't own. Music labels didn't like this and had them pulled (or tried to). Eventually, rather than deal with all this, Google started paying for music in videos to copyright owners (i don't know the details, and still don't).
Now, Google wants to add licensing for streaming into the existing contracts it has for payments on music videos (or music behind videos). Some people don't like the terms, and Google wants to remove those videos. After all, before Google was paying them, that's what they wanted anyways, right? And since they couldn't agree on a rate, Google will pull them.
As far as I can tell, they can still put their video on YouTube just like anyone else - it just won't get any special revenue from it. And all the indies (ok, a few vocal ones) have been complaining about the low rates for YouTube, Pandora, Spotify, etc. for a while, and one of their issues is that they can't opt out (because their label owns their recordings, and makes that decision). They wanted better payments, or their music removed. Now YouTube is saying it can't (or won't) pay more, and is backing it up by removing those videos. A lot of those same indies are now complaining that YouTube is pulling the videos. Seems like they should be happy. So what gives?
Admittedly, I don't know any details, but from the outside this doesn't like 'Google won't let me post a video like everyone else', but 'Google won't pay me what I want to host my video'. I'd be curious if anyone has any actual details; there wasn't much in the article.
I still wonder how Google will handle the other case e.g. when someone posts a Radiohead song behind their home video of amateur free running. This was covered automatically by the licensing before. If it isn't, they're back to the DMCA whack-a-mole takedown game, or statutory licensing, or what?
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of speech does imply meaningful access to an audience of some kind. Now yes, that audience must also have the readily-available freedom to not-listen and I don't think the Bill of Rights guaranteed a particular or captive audience, but an audience, at some level, there must be.
I lost you here.... the first amendment doesn't guarantee _anyone_ has to listen to you - it isn't saying "someone should be able to listen to you", it says "if the government happens to be in your audience, they can't retaliate based only on what you said".
I.E. if you want to go drunkenly shouting [insert extremist position here] propaganda at 3 in the morning in a small town deserted for the winter, and the only one who hears you is the local cop - the first amendment means he can't arrest you just for _what you say_. If you make your own website that says Donald Trump is a pumpkin, and the only person who ever goes there is Donald Trump himself - the first amendment means he can't arrest you just because he doesn't like what you said.
There is _no right to an audience_. A right to an audience would imply an _obligation_ for someone else to listen to you. And the Bill of Rights only creates obligations for the _government_, not for individuals.
I think you just explained why Hyperloop exists :) it may be a decent transportation system for Earth, it would be a great one for the Moon or Mars where the native atmosphere is lower anyways..
I use both(*), because not all indenting is for blocks - sometimes it's for a multiline list/string/dictionary, and for those I usually try to line up the second lines to
match where it started in the previous line to look better, and that depends on the length of the function name so isn't always an exact multiple of the tab width.
But I think you can also read from this that people who use spaces may care more about what their code looks like, which usually means they might care a bit more about what their code does as well.
(*), because my IDE converts all the tabs to spaces anyways - yes, I mostly am working in Python.
Jessica Alba,
other people mentioned The Honest Company, which was at one time valued at nearly $2 billion.
will.i.am,
Currently working for Intel (on the side) as their Director of Creative Innovation.
Gwyneth Paltrow
Don't know as much here, business-wise, but she also has mostly got out of acting (afaik) and moved on to business (and it's e-business), see goop.com...
I don't know the other guy.
Didn't see it posted....
Steven Johnson's "Where Good Things Come From" lays out a pretty good framework for innovative environments. ('Emergent' is also pretty good).
Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma" is also a good read.
And last, Dietrich Dorner's "The Logic of Failure" might be also good, from the other direction....
Are these people also benefiting from government handouts, or is that still a thing in China (was it ever)? Is there (was there ever) any kind of medical safety net? This makes a lot more sense if this is the equivalent of a teenager getting a side job while still living in their parents' house - if they already have some of their basic needs met, then this is really for luxuries anyways - lots of people are willing to trading working hard for a higher standard of living, but there's likely to be many others who are willing to trade a lower standard of 'stuff' to get more free time...
The lowest six-figure salary in octal would be 100000, or only $32768...
They probably figured they would take some vacation... which would reduce this to at least 48 or 49 weeks instead. It looks like they were using 46 weeks as the guideline (as that is what the math works out at).
So, more serious question: what's happening to yahoo finance? It's built-in as a data source in lots of places (e.g. pandas_datareader); what do people typically use for quotes instead today?
The most accurate division I've seen between 'left' and 'right', at least in the US, is the balance between mercy and justice - the left (=Democrats for the purpose of this article) prefers mercy to justice, the right (=Republicans) prefers justice to mercy. Some issues don't fall on this continuum (and many of them end up being about who receives mercy or justice), but a suprising number of them do.
Neither party has a monopoly on overspending, overregulating, corruption, etc. in pursuit of those goals... you will see general guidelines that are different (e.g. R = small government, D=social programs) but both will bend in pursuit of their overall goals... Politics is mostly how this gets worked out in the real world.
Example: Capital Punishment. Ds are the party of eternal hope - if there is any chance that even one killer could be rehabilitated, give them that chance, so it never makes sense to execute someone.
Rs are the party of avoiding more victims - giving someone a chance to be rehabilitated, means there is a chance they could kill again. That person's life should not be sacrified for the killer's mercy.
Both have merits IMHO. Currently, we balance this by allowing executions, but having them be somewhat rare - out of more than 15,000 murders (including manslaughter) in the US in 2015, there were 28 executions.
I don't know... in my opinion, 'Minority Report' (the short story, not the movie) went out of its way to defend it, even saying that while a conspiracy was trying to discredit pre-crime, it really was only possible to wrongly accuse Anderson because of his unique position. I don't know what PKD intended it to say, but that's how I read it...
The point about the traffic is valid.
But the actually path to the statistic is:
- 57.4% of sites reported no CMS
- 25% of sites reported WordPress
- From the first, 42.6% of sites reported some CMS
- WordPress is 25/42.6 = ~58% of all sites that did report
The invisible hand is really just trying to say that the overall economics of the system are an emergent property of what goes on at lower levels... i.e. the price of wheat is a direct result of many individual buy and sell transactions. they just didn't have the concepts to describe it back then.
It is very difficult to find this information. However, it is (sort of) available... i don't know of an actual death rate from vaccines exactly. Even this is hard to find, but there is a federal program (the 'Vaccine Injury Compensation Program') which compensates victims who have been harmed by compulsory vaccinations, and a summary chart of claims, accepted claims, and payouts is here:
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecom...
I had found a different, more accessible document before, but can't really find it now. Similar information though. On the other hand, the statistics for the prevalence of diseases that have vaccines for them is much more available, at CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pu...
Influenza has the highest compensated total (932 in 8 years). Looking at DTaP might be a better comparison... ~75 million doses in 8 years with 105 compensated cases (including death, but other things too). Combined Diptheria/Tetanus/Pertussis together, the CDC chart only goes to 2011 (so missing a couple years) but it shows no D cases, ~150 or so T cases, and nearly 100,000 P cases over the 7 years in question, with total deaths in that time period: 0 for D, 9 for T, ~18 for P (and none in the last 4 years on the chart, so trend was definitely down).
Would help to have a trend line for the compensated cases too. In any case, the statistics show that as of ~2011, you had a better chance of not dying by not getting the vaccine, but the chance in either case was vanishingly small.
Of course, the issue here is a free rider syndrome - if everyone else gets the vaccine, I can get the benefits (reduced chance of catching a bad disease) while everyone else bears the risks (possible chance of side effects from the vaccine). But if enough people don't get the vaccine, then the numbers change quickly as more people catch the disease.
We vaccinated, but we waited until after age 2 to give their immune system time to build up. Seemed like the best balance.
There's actually a restaurant in my town which reportedly is run, or subsidized somehow, by the Tourism Authority of Thailand. So I guess I'm not too surprised they focus this much on something cuisine-related...
I think the religious part is really a red herring.... it's really more about the hard science vs. psychology, and the black/white politicization of science. Not unlike the parts of Antifragile where he criticizes the 'Soviet-Harvard complex' for 'teaching birds how to fly' - basically, group makes sweeping assumptions about how the world works, goes through a 'scientific process' with the form but not the substance that validates their claims, and then uses that invalid but sciency-looking result as absolute truth to do societal engineering on a broad scale.
That's not the point... i don't know the details, maybe it's more complicated than this, but as i understand it there are rules about playing X% of canadian content. for a radio station, this means that if there are 24 hours in a day, they may need to play e.g. 10 hours of canadian music and 14 hours of everything else (announcers, commercials, foreign music, etc). And you either listen to it, or don't, but you can guarantee a certain percentage of supply. If you watch or listen to any particular station for any length of time, you'll see or listen to some canadian content.
Netflix doesn't work like that... i say i want to watch X, Y, and Z. if those aren't canadian, what do they realistically want netflix to do? throttle me? pay a tax on every non-canadian item? force the catalog of choices to be X% canadian? ensure that some canadian content is shown (but that's usually based on my watching history... guess it would have to take some additional input)? none of those are really very similar to the content quotas on radio/TV, and are far less effective at promoting Canadian cultural content....
in general, culture is transitioning from a push model to a pull model. There's just not as much room for central control of any kind to meaningfully control it.
Except.... cable companies program what they are going to play. Netflix plays what their subscribers want to see. What are they supposed to do, put up a notice saying 'You can't watch the next episode of "Under the Dome" until you first watch your quota of 3 of these other Canadian shows?' The rules don't even make sense for the Netflix model.
Computer science _should_ be much more like civil engineering.... a good civil engineer knows how to build the bridge AND understands the physics behind it. Maybe the problem is that if CS IS like physics, there isn't a good analogy to civil engineering... 'computer engineering' exists, but isn't that common, and often is hardware-focused... i guess 'software engineer' would probably be the equivalent, but it's not nearly as common as CS, and unlike a civil engineering degree doesn't cover as well the equivalent of 'physics' usually.
that said, if what you are building is a house and not a bridge, or even if you HAVE a bridge but are just renovating the gate house, you don't need either the physics major _or_ the civil engineer.... construction is more of an apprenticeship model, and maybe some programming shops are more like that...
Well, it might be theoretically possible - but you'd need to get the bits from somewhere. Think of an ocean wave, and you want to measure the height of the water at a given point in time. But waves on water move in fairly predictable ways, so a single picture will tell you both the height of the water at the time the picture was taken, as well as a good approximation of what it was for a short time before and after the picture.
Another possibility is if there are multiple video streams from the same event, they are probably all 30 fps, but probably didn't catch the exact same samples - overlay them and you may be able to reconstruct a higher-frequency signal.
This doesn't make it an easier problem, or even possible - now, instead of having to capture at a frequency above the nyquist rate, you have to capture video at a resolution that can tell the micro-topology of a potato chip bag from 15 feet away. After all, you have to extract the information from somewhere. But there are ways to get beyond nyquist sometimes.
Another example which feels related but i'm not sure how yet: Roland has a patent on electronic drums. They have a single sensor in the middle of the drum, yet within a quarter-wave of a hit anywhere on the drum, they can tell both that it was hit and how far away from the center it was hit, based on the shape of the wave.
That would be the Mitrokhin Archive. That link is to the book (about 20 years old or so?) but apparently the entire archive was recently released.
Exactly. It's like if I ran a shop in the 'old' days. You walk in and special-order something, with next-day delivery. I order from the manufacturer and they send it overnight to me, so I can give it to you. But instead of making it easy for FedEx to get the package to me, I charge them to 'rent' my loading dock.
So, in this case they tweaked their algorithm for which posts/what priority they show them for some users. This is probably something they do all the time anyways, so this time, they decided to formalize it and add to the research corpus. Seems reasonable to me.
So, what if this had come out differently. What if it had just been Facebook tweaking their algorithms for 'better user experience', would the outcry be as loud? Isn't that what businesses do all the time? Try things, and see what kind of results they get from them?
You have to present all the posts, and you have to choose an order - you can't 'just show them'. Is this always a moral choice? I suppose they could just pick them randomly, but that's not likely to make their users happier either. Where is the line between ordering for control, and ordering to give a better user experience?
A 'music label' is someone who wants to get paid for their music being in a video on YouTube, and doesn't want it there otherwise.
A lot of this discussion is confusing... but maybe it is for Google as well. After all, this all started because lots of people put up music and videos on YouTube that they didn't own. Music labels didn't like this and had them pulled (or tried to). Eventually, rather than deal with all this, Google started paying for music in videos to copyright owners (i don't know the details, and still don't).
Now, Google wants to add licensing for streaming into the existing contracts it has for payments on music videos (or music behind videos). Some people don't like the terms, and Google wants to remove those videos. After all, before Google was paying them, that's what they wanted anyways, right? And since they couldn't agree on a rate, Google will pull them.
As far as I can tell, they can still put their video on YouTube just like anyone else - it just won't get any special revenue from it. And all the indies (ok, a few vocal ones) have been complaining about the low rates for YouTube, Pandora, Spotify, etc. for a while, and one of their issues is that they can't opt out (because their label owns their recordings, and makes that decision). They wanted better payments, or their music removed. Now YouTube is saying it can't (or won't) pay more, and is backing it up by removing those videos. A lot of those same indies are now complaining that YouTube is pulling the videos. Seems like they should be happy. So what gives?
Admittedly, I don't know any details, but from the outside this doesn't like 'Google won't let me post a video like everyone else', but 'Google won't pay me what I want to host my video'. I'd be curious if anyone has any actual details; there wasn't much in the article.
I still wonder how Google will handle the other case e.g. when someone posts a Radiohead song behind their home video of amateur free running. This was covered automatically by the licensing before. If it isn't, they're back to the DMCA whack-a-mole takedown game, or statutory licensing, or what?