I am simply asking what the arrival times are good for. To the unitiated, it does not seem to matter if the precision is by the second rather than the microsecond, and that it doesn't really matter if the computer clock is off by several minutes and has the precision of a wristwatch.
This is in the context of the uspernova event, I guess.
IIRC neutrino bursts from SN tell us about events deep inside the supernova, since EM radiation interacts with the plasma the star is made of, it is absorbed and reemited, and therefore all the efects are slower than c. IIRC the shockwave is about 2 orders of magnitude slower.
Neutrinos, however, (almost) do not interact, so they leave the star at c. To get the speed of the shockwave, you need to compare the time of nutrino and EM bursts.
The radius of the sun is about 3 light-seconds. A SN star is typicaly not very much larger, so comparing the time of neutrino-burst with the time of EM radiation pulse needs to be done at seconds, or tens of seconds accuracy, so mircoseconds will not help you, but OTOH minutes will probably hurt you.
I find that amusing-- as I've seen people do this regularly... On top of this, tech companies tend to give good vacation benefits, etc.
let me ask you this: was this before or during the current economical crisis ?
Restraints on employers is not such a big deal when employees are in high demand, it is when unemployment is high that such restraints are really important.
You acknowledge the problems with unions, but it is you that see it as two choices: large corrupt, mob run unions, or no freedom
please read what I wrote more carefully. I did not say there's no other choice, I only said I cannot think of one, and I'll be glad to find a better one. But a better option must, IMHO, provide balancing forces for raw capitalism.
Well, we can have freedom without unions-- in a given company which would be better- one union that can deliver the employees to the bosses, or a dozen unions all representing different groups of employees? The latter will get you better deal, and if your union doesn't represent you well, then you can switch unions.
So, is what you're saying not that unions are inherently bad, but that a single, monopolistic union is bad for workers ? Good point, I agree.
For instance, the example that you didn't articulate but referenced makes no sense-- you go work for a company that pays you a salary and in exchange you work 40 hours a week (or 50 if that's the agreement.) If they violate the agreement, you are due compensation (and companies will compensate you.) If you don't like the deal, you can go work somewhere else. You bring this up in your negotiations with them after they make an offer and they are going to work with you.
This is again, naive. My g.f. went to work for a biotech company. They agreed on a 45 HR week, but the standard agreement is that the employer should devote hours "as much as the job demands". No one in this field employs w/o this malicious clause, and they know very well why. The average work-day there was 11-12 hours. And those that did not agree to this were promptly laid off. Official reason being they "did not fit", but everybody knew... And this is my point: sometimes you cannot immidiately go work someplace else. Protection for workers at that (much more common today) state is needed.
Well, will you be willing to also give up the right to leave the job without their permission? You're demanding that they can't fire you when you refuse to do your job, will you give up the contrary?
no, but the situation is NOT symmetric.
You have the right to leave your job. They have the right to fire you. It doesn't matter if you have cause to leave your job (they ask you to work too many hours) or they have cause to fire you (you stole money). IF you just don't like the personalities involved you can end the employment, and so can they. That is what is known as at will employment.
First, it's not so simple, the right to employ and to fire is not w/o restraints: for example see sexual harassment laws, or mandatory natal vacation (In my country, an employer cannot legally fire a mother because she has kids and takes 3-month vacation after birth).
Laws, by definition, are social norms backed up by remedies. Employers and employees are NOT equal, and the law does (IMHO, should) not treat them as such. Also, it is naive to think that the judicial system is the only effective means of conflict-solving in society. Laws have their place, but something has to create social norms.
As an example, do you think mandatory natal vacation would have existed, or kept, unless there were active organizations keeping that right ?
(and don't think this is obvious, I personally know a professor (woman, BTW), which ASKS her prospective (female) students if they plan to have kids during their PHD... Rights who are not actively protected can swiftly be eroded)
IF you're going to demand that they cannot fire you, are you going to also give up the legal right to leave the job?
This is the same question, and I'll give the same answer. No. but the question is biased: the situations are assymetric.
IF... simply... ask for redress. Every business thats' still going to be around in 3 years will work something out with you... . And any business that won't-- wouldn't be around in a couple years to give you job security anyway, cause they won't be able to retain enough quality employees to compete in the marketplace.
nice theory. What about temp workers ?
Either that or your demands exceed your market value, and simple economics tells you that whenever you have that condition, a company that meets your demands will be going under soon.
1) So according to you, since many people united have higher market value, simple economics tells you they'll get a better deal => unions (or some other form of collective) are needed.
2) Again, you neglect other social processes. Economics, simple or not, is a part of the social dynamics. Marksists were wrong to treat it as the full model. So are fanatic capitalists.
Summary:
1) IMHO, the situation of (large) employers and a single employee is no more symetric than that of microsoft and a single consumer. Hence restraints should be put on employers. 2) IMHO, free-market restraints are not enough. This is harshly demonstrated in times of economical crisis. 3) Civil (or criminal) law is not a sufficient tool for all human, or even employment conflict solving. 4) Laws and other norms are not made or kept w/o social movements and organizations pushing for them. Hence the need for some kind of balancing force to raw capitalism mandates some forms of collective movements of workers. 5) Unions, like governemnts (or corporations) are a good servant and an evil master. There must be checks and balances for them as well. Perhaps, as you sugested, competition between unions is a good way to go. I'm not sure it'll work, but it may be worth a try... 6) I'm open to any other reasonable suggestion.
Like most people you are forgetting that insurance is one of the few industries run entirely on logic and mathematics -- their actuaries calculate the risk and the cost and multiple it out to get your premium.
actually, not quite exact: I met a man whose sole livelihood depends on insurance companies NOT familiar with the law of large numbers...
to explain: his company is a middleman between the large insurance companies and single insurance agents.
Now, this company's sole service is being a medium-scale repository of agents for the large companies, and for this they take 10% commision.
Why do the agents do this ? because the large companies treat every account as a profit-making unit, so even if the single agent is very succesful, just one large insurance claim causes him to be unprofitable some fiscal year (or several years), which means this agent will be out of a job. For the medium-sized company, however, fluctuations are much smaller, hence they have little risk, they are almost allways a "profitable unit".
This causes the absurd situation that large insurance companies lose 10% of gross-profit (more for real profit) because they ignore the law of large numbers !!
now, I asked this man wether they didn't know the absurdity of this, and he said of course they did, but they needed to justify every account to the board as profitable, so they did not try to change it.
And the morals of the story: like every industry, the insurance industry is not allways run solely on math and logic... corporate politics takes its toll here as well.
Unfortuantely, that's not what we have here. Unions don't work to get people a "fair deal" they are an organization that merely extorts a cut of your job. If you don't pay the protection money, you loose your job.
That's why they are the mob-- they are a protection racket pure and simple.
There is much truth in what you say. However, let me ask you this: what caused the shortenning of the average work-day from 14 to 9 hours ? and why do tech workers work so much more than average workers ? And this is true not just for workoholics, but for people wishing for more balance..
Also, do you think that children-labor was stoped using free-market means, or by workers organization ?
You say unions are a mob in that they take protection-fees. That they are corrupt and self-serving. To this I agree very much, how ever, the problem is that workers DO need protection against employers, not just the "mob". Workers DO need stable, uncorrupted pension plans, health insurance, and other social benefits. What can give them these things, except some sort of a union ?
Unless you have another answer (I don't), the resulting conclusion, IMHO, is that unions are like governments: they are a usefull servant and a horrible master, one has to be vigilant to keep them in check, but throwing them alltogether is not a good solution either.
AS to negotiating better terms for you-- they make that HARDER.
harder when times for workers are good, and workers are in short supply. Easier when times are bad, and work is in short supply. What is more important ?
AS to the free market being mythical, thats akin to saying gravity is mythical
For a single electron at room temperature, gravity is mythical i.e. it's effects is negligible...
What I ment by this is the following: when a single employee plans how much he wants to work, He CANNOT market his working hours per his choice, and their market-value.
This means that when his work demands from him a 70-Hr week, week after week, he cannot practically tell his boss: "I want to work just 50-Hrs a week, pay me less if that's what you think I deserve, but this is what I'm willing to give"
This kind of negotiation practically can usually be done only by MANY workers when united.
This is what I mean when I say that in some scales a free market is mythical: some freedoms (like the freedom to LIMIT your work-time, even at a financial cost) cannot usually be achieved
The only way a free market can not work is if people refuse to participate-- otherwise by definition you have a free market. Before you discount the free market so quickly-- you should look at what you see as really wrong with it-- and I'm confident you will discover that whats' really causing the distortions you don't like are government interference. Not problems with the free market.
What is wrong with it, is that a completely free market can lead to less free people , like the above example. And I do not see how governments are the cause of this, I'll be glad to be enlightended in this matter.
AT its root, people who hate the free market fall into two camps:
I do not hate the free market. I consider it's pros and cons, and find it a flawed nescecity, like unions. I hate limiting the freedom of people. Both unions and large employers are needed, but are needed to be kept in check.
fall into two camps: Those who want tyranny and want slaves instead of free people, and those who think they want free people but at the same time want people to not be responsible for their own actions. I suspect you fall into the latter.
It is a good salesman which restricts every question into just 2 options...
I do think I want free people. I want people to be free to tell their employer: you cannot fire me just because I refuse to work more than we bargained for. For most people, especially those who have families, security INCREASES freedom.
I, in short, wants a balance: I don't want communism, where security abolishes freedom and productivity, but I don't want unchecked capitalism, where lack of security practically abolishes freedom.
I want people to have ambition, to strive to improve their life and their children's prospects, and to have freedom to do so. I also want them to have the freedom to say: enough. My ambition goes obly so far, and I want to spend 2-3 hours a day with my wife and kids. If the consequence is a lesser pay, than they have that choice. If they cannot do that w/o getting fired, then they do not have that choice, and are practically NOT responsible for their own time.
As to unions, they're just another name for the mob
Spoken like a true samurai. Confidant in your (I assume) competance as an individual Techy, you restrict all employer-employee interacion to single combat^H^H^H^H^H^H programer-employer negotiations, implying that organized-workers are immoral (they are just "mob").
immoral they may or may not be, but don't forget one thing... the samurai lost, eventually.
And are unions, BTW, worse than employing corporations, which are also large armies^H^H^H^H^H organizations, usually quite a bit more powerful than a single hacker ?
don't get me wrong, I'm a techy myself (Math, C.S. and Phys. at different academic levels), and I think a man should be paid per his own worth. But I also belive that the notion of a free market, and free choice for workers, is many times more of a myth than reality. A myth which does NOT benefit the workers in the long run.
I think unions suck. But there has to be a balancing force to raw capitalism, or the peasents will revolt against the equity lords... to the eventual loss of both.
To put a gross mathematical picture, capitalism and progress are driven by a high derivative of the income distribution. Too uniform a distribution and society suffocates, as in comunism. Too much inequality, however, and the "mob", i.e. most of the people, will revolt, throwing down the system. So balance should to be reached before that point, and what will be the returning force from the over-capitalistic side ?
I see no such balancing powers today, and do not know if there are other options than worker-unions. I can't think of any. I hope someone will. But either way, careful consideration of the notions of organized labor is needed also for tech workers, not an over simplistic (IMHO) moral rejection.
these are entirely different issues which have already been solved via lawsuit (or so I thought).
I belive you are naive in thinking that a lawsuit solves this. For starters, I belive you are referring to a civil (damages) suit against the tobacco industries. This suit may or may not punish the companies involved at some time in the future, but marketting to kids is done now, and should be dealt with now. Even criminal-law is not quite successful when dealing with drug pushers, let a lone a civil suit which can take decades to completion. By the time it's complete, the culprits already retired on their fat bonuses. This is, to make an understatement, a quite poor deterence...
What I'm trying to say is that tobacco is marketted to kids now. It needs to be taken care off now, and not by some lawsuit to affect distant future profits.
What I said was that selective *taxing* of certain markets is unfair and creates more problems than it solves. It weakens the foundation of the free market system, which is built upon equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome)
Again, why unfair, and against whom ?
Why shouldn't the government encourage some issues that aren't very profitable to the stock owners (like public transportation, public health, various non-profit organizations ) by tax-exemptions and even public-funding (and also public scrutiny !) ?
On the same note, why shouldn't the government discourage endevours which are very profitable to a small interest group (stock owners), but creates major health and financial damages to society as a whole ?
the way I see it, free market (ideally) brings you to fluctuations around a least-energy solution. This does not mean this solution is the best for society. Applying constraints through taxation changes profitablities, thus creating a new equilibrium. Their is, IMHO, nothing sacred about the non-constrained solutions. It is by their benefit to society that solutions should be measured.
It is true that too much constraints will bring bad, unsustainable solutions, but no constraints at all bring bad solutions as well. Witness the situation during the great depression, when american people starved, even though there was enough agricultural product for them.
Equal opportunity should be given to people, not to industries or even professions. Those should be judged on profitability as well as on the base of their contribution (pos. or neg.) to society, which is a political decision.
The child prostitute issue is a silly comparison because children do not have the same rights as adults. And for good reason: Children are not experienced enough in the world to make the same decisions as adults.
I agree children have more rights than adults, and are more vulnerable. I belive people who prey on them, with proven negative health results, should be criminally punished. This is so both for direct means (like giving a "candy" at a party) and for indirect means ( i.e. various marketting tricks specificly tailored for that audience, and used on it.)
If you believe that the tobacco industry does not target kids and adulescent, than we disagree on issue of guilt. If you believe that even if they do prey on children, than there is no such similarity with other child-abusers, we disagree on values.
Sorry, but this analogy is dead wrong. A rapist conducts his business on an involuntary basis, using force, to achieve his goals. This is a violation of the most basic human right of all -- the right to be secure in your posessions (in this case, yourself). The act of dealing drugs, however distasteful or immoral you consider it, is an entirely voluntary, non-coercive practice. This is the fundamental difference between rape (an act of force on an un-consenting person) and the selling/marketing of drugs (a voluntary exchange between consenting adults).
I repeat the point: when dealing with adults in a normal situation then I agree. Freedom cannot be guarded w/o allowing adult people to take risks. But I was refering to child-seduction case.
How many do you need for that? We already dumped almost half a Mars mission of funding into that tin can.
I think studying remote work technology is at least as important.
Perhaps the ISS is a budget-sink, I believe, however, that human colonization of space certainly isn't. For this we need both RC research, and long-term human space-habitat R&D. The ISS may be a flawed, over-priced means for this target (to this I agree), but the target itself is worthwhile. Actually, IMHO,it is one of the most worthwhile targets humanity has today, if it wishes to survive, much more so than a Mars 'mission' (though, as a researcher, I do not object to scientific research, Quite the contrary...).
... humans are the most capable...
Including the remote humans behind the controls and 3D cameras
I beg to disagree, for the following reasons: 1) time delay. A human several seconds away is less capable. ( Oh, and BTW, for the purpose of a mars mission this 4..20 light-MINUTES away, as the pathfinder incident painfully demonstrate... )
2) Robotics, AFAIK, is currently nowhere near to achieve the versatility, flexibility, sensory abilities, self-healing and various other advantages of a pair of human hands. Not to mention the natural control mechanisms (healthy) humans have for them, and for the motion of the torso.
Though it is true that for some applications outside the normal parameters (scale, or repetetiveness) of human-action, (like micro-surgery, or handling large structures, or many identical actions on a production line), robotic extensions can be better than the natural mechanisms, it is still not so for most non-simple , human-scale activities.
... yes I do belive that if there were NO OTHER fesiable alternative (I admitt many of the posts that score 5 suggest much bettet alternitives), I would take a mans life...
So, as you say, there are other options. These other options are the very essence of democracy. You use the term "war". The democratic way can be summarized by the understanding that not every conflict is a war, and that there are usually better, less extreme (and more effective) ways of setteling most differences than murdering your neighbour. Even if he really pisses you off.
To be more general, use of power, by the state AND internal entities (including citizens) is not evil by itself, but it needs to be smart, careful, and roughly proportional to the wrong you are trying to fix. Taking a life is the ultimate use of force, and is to be taken only when life or health itself is threatened. Even so, unless in immediate self-defense, this ultimate force should be moderated by the democratic processes, so that the state will not degenerate into either a pile of cancerous gangsters, or a homicidal dictatorship.
This is what I answer to grishnakh, as well. Yes, Nazi soldiers and their leaders had loved ones, Bin Laden and his death-worshipping followers have loved ones, but they are people who threatened (and actually executed) life itself. Against such actions, use of lethal force is not only justified, it is compulsory. The DMCA, and even it's worse successors, SSCCA or whatever the acronym is today, does not directly threaten life. So resist it democratically, learn from the great Gandhi. If Gandhi would have fought the Nazis or Bin-Laden, he probably would not have been successful, but against the british, he was. Because they had the integrity to be ashamed. Because they had the moral framework I still belive most of the americans possess. You americans have a democracy, and a generally democratic people. It is a great, rare gift: use it appropriately, change it carefully and efficiently, don't destroy it for the purpose of protecting it.
some one needs to take out BayTSP, or at least a couple people over there. Take one for the rest of us
Man, are you mad ? You are soliciting for a murder ! even if this was not a major felony (and rightly so !), Do you really think the DMCA is worth taking a man's life in cold blood ?
These guys at BayTSP, snivelling little moral wretches that they are, have families, parents, wives you suggest to widdow, children you wish to orphan. Think about the consequences of what you say !
You do sound like a terrorist. The real, fanatic, psichopathic kind. I hope it's because you wrote w/o thinking, not because you really are. Humanity has far too many of those.
What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software? Talk about an effective technique to get people to switch to Linux!! Seriously, we'd all probably lose some friends along the way,
some friends ? you'd probably lose all of them, for a good reason. Every one is human, and good friends criticize your shortcomings, but do not prey on, or exploit them.
Your suggestion leads towards a society of fanatic, obnoxious little snitches, like the one my friends from the former USSR describe. It is a cure much worse than the disease.
Sorry, but this sort of selective taxing is completely unfair (to both industry and consumers),
why, oh why should the government be "fair" to a certain industry ? Politics is, in it's very essence, the process of deciding what is worthy of the tax-payer's money and what isn't. Your notion of fairness is a notion of equality-of-industries. but some industries are beneficial, some are hurting society, why treat them equally ?
economically ungrounded,
economy is a part of the human society interplay, it is not the only metric by which an idea should be judged.
and designed to benefit only special interest groups.
so according to you:
"public health" == special interest group "tobbaco-lords profits" != special interest group
interesting interpretation of language.
The tobacco industry, as much as you may despise it, is providing the supply of a product -- on a voluntary basis -- which is in demand and always will be. Thus the tobacco industry, like it or not, does indeed "benefit mankind"
when you are talking about consenting adults, I agree. However, tobbaco companies, indeed like their unlawful siblings, the addicting-drug industry, makes it a strategic habit to influence the weaker, more succeptible parts of society, the children and adulescents. This the pushers do in full, cynical knowledge that they need to create the addiction before a rational, adult person, able to make an informed, rational decision is formed.
Your argument for "existing demand" is therefore the moral equivalent of saying that there's an "existing need" for child prostitutes in thailand, and that therefore if the children (most of which are sold w/o understanding the consequences) do it "voluntarilly" (usually because they need to eat), so there's no moral problem in being a child pimp, and anyway, one shouldn't be unfair to the child-prostitution industry.
In my view, one of the functions of society is the need to protect it's weak parts from brutal exploiters like the companies you protect. This is why I pay my taxes, so that pushers and other children-abusers will not get access to our children, at least not before they are grown enough to stand on their own mental feet.
Now wether or not outlawing tobacco or other addicting drugs is effective, that's a different question, but saying that pushers "fulfil a need" is like saying the rapist "fulfils the need" of the child victim, which is too young to say no (so it means he/she wanted it, doesn't it ? => there exists a demand, doesn't it ? and anyway, one shouldn't be unfair to the child-mollesting industry ).
I hope this will make you reconsider your values...
Re:More information about the anti-matter?
on
A Shocking Space Movie
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Maybe because they're moving at identical speeds in opposite directions under the influence of a magnetic field?
I'm not really sure. How do they know the magnetic configurstion around that N.S. ? and besides, these waves are supposed, AFAI understand, to be composed of electron-positron plasmas, I sincerely doubt they have the resolution required to plot single particles' trajectories...
My guess is that such a claim is probably based on spectroscopy :
1) take a strong wavelength 2) substruct (probably do some kind of reverse integral transform) doppler, 3) get e+-e- anhilation energy 4) 1+2+3 => e+-e- plasma portion.
I can't reasonably think on any other plausible way, but then again, I'll be glad to find out...
what other chip manufacturers are there to fill in the gap? Here's a clue: None.
today, there are none, but if the (larger) non-american market realy rejects TCPA and the hardware, AND intel and AMD will refuse to fill that need (highly unlikely, IMHO, they will go where profit is), then new contenders will arrise. Not in a day. Not in a year. But they will.
Now the battle is in the court of consumer acceptance. As [insert favorite deity here] is my witness, I will NOT buy ANYTHING that has anything to do with Palladium. Let's see how many others have the same resolve.
again, I tend to think foreign goverments and buisnesses will be quite shy about such "improvements". Not because they like freedom (goverments seldom do), but because they understand the meaning of control, and will NOT want to give it to MS, AMD, or intel.
Bad example. India invade Kashmir? The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. My personal opinion is that to call this an invasion would be a stretch . The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. The only time India may conceivably have 'invaded' Kashmir, in 1947, in response to a request by the legal ruler of the state [admittedly under pressure]..
OK, viewed in that context, I wrote something too extreme, I clarify: I did not mean (though it can be interpreted that way) india is making a habit of invading either it's neighbours or Kashmir, but for rebuttal, I showed a case of invasion. (BTW, when a leader under duress invites foreign forces in, that constitutes an invasion, AFAIK.)
Due disclosure: am Indian
have no quarrel with you, or your country. notice that in my original post I specificly did NOT claim India was an active threat to the rest of the world, only that it is larger and more powerful by several o.o.m. than Israel, thus being a larger potential threat than Israel can ever conceivably be.
kidding aside, I could think of much worse ways to use $10^9 than donating to alternative energy storage research, or to futuristic interplanetary-propulsion research.
The size of a country has little to do with how many enemies they have.
it has to do with its danger to the rest of the world, which was your original claim.
can a mouse, no matter how many enemies it has, realisticly pose more of a threat than an grisly ? get real.
Also Israel has effectivly been in a state of civil war for over half a century.
so is Israel weak or strong ? if it cannot control a 'civil-war' for half a century, how can it be a danger to other nations ? make up your mind.
The facts, as usual with your posts in this thread, are different. Israel has had civil war ONCE. and that is in 1948. It had clashes with arab citizens, and an uprising in the west-bank and gaza, which were occupied, but never joined to the state of israel. In all of these, it is true there was a certain threat (mainly terror, not anihilation) from arab-citizens of israel, but never anything remotely like a civil-war (for examples of real civil wars, lookup spain, or the US, to get the concept ). read a history book, it will do you good.
Only one of these countries makes a habit of invading it's neighbours
Hello ? does the name Kashmir ring any bells ? I repeat my advice, read some history.
ignoring UN resolutions
Ahh, that unbiassed, appolitical body, the UN, some of its soldiers actively helped abduct israelly soldiers from within it's border. Ignoring its resolutions is really raving lunacy. Only the antichrist can ignore the words of such a holy, pristine, uncorrupt entity.
and even tried to sink a US navy ship.
This I don't know much about, so, surprize, surprize, will not respond on.
But even if this were true, to project from such an incident on the relative threat to human-kind, is really quite an impressive logical leap. Or should I say, a leap of faith...
As for danger to rest of the world India is far less of an issue than Israel
this is either blind prejudice or blind ignorance. But just in case someone doesn't know the facts, I'll bite:
size of India : 2,973,190 sq km Area - comparative: slightly more than one-third the size of the US
# of citizens : 1,029,991,145 (July 2001 est.)
these data (unlike your prepostrous claim) are not blown out of my ass, but can be found
here
size of Israel : 20,330 sq km Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey
# of israelly citizens : 5,938,093 (yes, that's six millions, not billions...)
again, this is from
the same source
so, wether or not India should be viewed as a potential threat by the US, it is a laughable to claim a country the size of New Jersy, with 1/200 the population of india, is anywhere near the military threat that can potentially be posed by india.
(this is not to say india is a threat to the US, just that Israel and India are of completely different o.o.m.,and that the comparison is therefore absurd)
but, I suspect mpe will not let such shaky facts stand in the way of his solid prejudices.
I mean, how many valid emails can you possibly have that both have scientific terms and words like "hot teen sex." Unless, of course, it's a scientific study about either spam, or hot teen sex.
well, for "hot teen sex", or "novel penis enlargement techniques available today !!" spam, I guess you're right. but for "get your mortguage now!", or for "cheap toner at amazing prices!" kind of spam this seems more tricky.
Unless, of course, I'm completely wrong about this whole thing and just don't realize it, which is sometimes far more likely than I approve of.
IIUC, The proposed method normalizes (with Ln norm) over the number of words, for "spammishness" and "unspammishness" of words, combining the results.
whats stoping the spammers from attaching, say, a random scientific article longer than the spam at the end of the spam message ? This will give the spam a high grade in these bayesian method in general, but more so with his normalizing metric.
Re:People will back this president anywhere!
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
because Clinton was a brilliant man, however flawed, and Bush is simply above-average
Slashdot Mirror
We're lucky cows can't fly.
Well what do they do with all of the protons?
oxidized to water
disclaimer: IANA astrophysicist.
I am simply asking what the arrival times are good for. To the unitiated, it does not seem to matter if the precision is by the second rather than the microsecond, and that it doesn't really matter if the computer clock is off by several minutes and has the precision of a wristwatch.
This is in the context of the uspernova event, I guess.
IIRC neutrino bursts from SN tell us about events deep inside the supernova, since EM radiation interacts with the plasma the star is made of, it is absorbed and reemited, and therefore all the efects are slower than c. IIRC the shockwave is about 2 orders of magnitude slower.
Neutrinos, however, (almost) do not interact, so they leave the star at c. To get the speed of the shockwave, you need to compare the time of nutrino and EM bursts.
The radius of the sun is about 3 light-seconds. A SN star is typicaly not very much larger, so comparing the time of neutrino-burst with the time of EM radiation pulse needs to be done at seconds, or tens of seconds accuracy, so mircoseconds will not help you, but OTOH minutes will probably hurt you.
I find that amusing-- as I've seen people do this regularly ... On top of this, tech companies tend to give good vacation benefits, etc.
...
... Rights who are not actively protected can swiftly be eroded)
... simply ... ask for redress. Every business thats' still going to be around in 3 years will work something out with you ... . And any business that won't-- wouldn't be around in a couple years to give you job security anyway, cause they won't be able to retain enough quality employees to compete in the marketplace.
...
let me ask you this: was this before or during the current economical crisis ?
Restraints on employers is not such a big deal when employees are in high demand, it is when unemployment is high that such restraints are really important.
You acknowledge the problems with unions, but it is you that see it as two choices: large corrupt, mob run unions, or no freedom
please read what I wrote more carefully. I did not say there's no other choice, I only said I cannot think of one, and I'll be glad to find a better one. But a better option must, IMHO, provide balancing forces for raw capitalism.
Well, we can have freedom without unions-- in a given company which would be better- one union that can deliver the employees to the bosses, or a dozen unions all representing different groups of employees? The latter will get you better deal, and if your union doesn't represent you well, then you can switch unions.
So, is what you're saying not that unions are inherently bad, but that a single, monopolistic union is bad for workers ? Good point, I agree.
For instance, the example that you didn't articulate but referenced makes no sense-- you go work for a company that pays you a salary and in exchange you work 40 hours a week (or 50 if that's the agreement.) If they violate the agreement, you are due compensation (and companies will compensate you.) If you don't like the deal, you can go work somewhere else. You bring this up in your negotiations with them after they make an offer and they are going to work with you.
This is again, naive. My g.f. went to work for a biotech company. They agreed on a 45 HR week, but the standard agreement is that the employer should devote hours "as much as the job demands". No one in this field employs w/o this malicious clause, and they know very well why. The average work-day there was 11-12 hours. And those that did not agree to this were promptly laid off. Official reason being they "did not fit", but everybody knew
And this is my point: sometimes you cannot immidiately go work someplace else. Protection for workers at that (much more common today) state is needed.
Well, will you be willing to also give up the right to leave the job without their permission? You're demanding that they can't fire you when you refuse to do your job, will you give up the contrary?
no, but the situation is NOT symmetric.
You have the right to leave your job. They have the right to fire you. It doesn't matter if you have cause to leave your job (they ask you to work too many hours) or they have cause to fire you (you stole money). IF you just don't like the personalities involved you can end the employment, and so can they. That is what is known as at will employment.
First, it's not so simple, the right to employ and to fire is not w/o restraints: for example see sexual harassment laws, or mandatory natal vacation (In my country, an employer cannot legally fire a mother because she has kids and takes 3-month vacation after birth).
Laws, by definition, are social norms backed up by remedies. Employers and employees are NOT equal, and the law does (IMHO, should) not treat them as such. Also, it is naive to think that the judicial system is the only effective means of conflict-solving in society. Laws have their place, but something has to create social norms.
As an example, do you think mandatory natal vacation would have existed, or kept, unless there were active organizations keeping that right ?
(and don't think this is obvious, I personally know a professor (woman, BTW), which ASKS her prospective (female) students if they plan to have kids during their PHD
IF you're going to demand that they cannot fire you, are you going to also give up the legal right to leave the job?
This is the same question, and I'll give the same answer. No. but the question is biased: the situations are assymetric.
IF
nice theory. What about temp workers ?
Either that or your demands exceed your market value, and simple economics tells you that whenever you have that condition, a company that meets your demands will be going under soon.
1) So according to you, since many people united have higher market value, simple economics tells you they'll get a better deal => unions (or some other form of collective) are needed.
2) Again, you neglect other social processes. Economics, simple or not, is a part of the social dynamics. Marksists were wrong to treat it as the full model. So are fanatic capitalists.
Summary:
1) IMHO, the situation of (large) employers and a single employee is no more symetric than that of microsoft and a single consumer. Hence restraints should be put on employers.
2) IMHO, free-market restraints are not enough. This is harshly demonstrated in times of economical crisis.
3) Civil (or criminal) law is not a sufficient tool for all human, or even employment conflict solving.
4) Laws and other norms are not made or kept w/o social movements and organizations pushing for them. Hence the need for some kind of balancing force to raw capitalism mandates some forms of collective movements of workers.
5) Unions, like governemnts (or corporations) are a good servant and an evil master. There must be checks and balances for them as well. Perhaps, as you sugested, competition between unions is a good way to go. I'm not sure it'll work, but it may be worth a try
6) I'm open to any other reasonable suggestion.
Like most people you are forgetting that insurance is one of the few industries run entirely on logic and mathematics -- their actuaries calculate the risk and the cost and multiple it out to get your premium.
...
.
... corporate politics takes its toll here as well.
actually, not quite exact: I met a man whose sole livelihood depends on insurance companies NOT familiar with the law of large numbers
to explain: his company is a middleman between the large insurance companies and single insurance agents.
Now, this company's sole service is being a medium-scale repository of agents for the large companies, and for this they take 10% commision.
Why do the agents do this ? because the large companies treat every account as a profit-making unit, so even if the single agent is very succesful, just one large insurance claim causes him to be unprofitable some fiscal year (or several years), which means this agent will be out of a job. For the medium-sized company, however, fluctuations are much smaller, hence they have little risk, they are almost allways a "profitable unit"
This causes the absurd situation that large insurance companies lose 10% of gross-profit (more for real profit) because they ignore the law of large numbers !!
now, I asked this man wether they didn't know the absurdity of this, and he said of course they did, but they needed to justify every account to the board as profitable, so they did not try to change it.
And the morals of the story: like every industry, the insurance industry is not allways run solely on math and logic
Unfortuantely, that's not what we have here. Unions don't work to get people a "fair deal" they are an organization that merely extorts a cut of your job. If you don't pay the protection money, you loose your job.
..
...
...
That's why they are the mob-- they are a protection racket pure and simple.
There is much truth in what you say. However, let me ask you this: what caused the shortenning of the average work-day from 14 to 9 hours ? and why do tech workers work so much more than average workers ? And this is true not just for workoholics, but for people wishing for more balance
Also, do you think that children-labor was stoped using free-market means, or by workers organization ?
You say unions are a mob in that they take protection-fees. That they are corrupt and self-serving. To this I agree very much, how ever, the problem is that workers DO need protection against employers, not just the "mob". Workers DO need stable, uncorrupted pension plans, health insurance, and other social benefits. What can give them these things, except some sort of a union ?
Unless you have another answer (I don't), the resulting conclusion, IMHO, is that unions are like governments: they are a usefull servant and a horrible master, one has to be vigilant to keep them in check, but throwing them alltogether is not a good solution either.
AS to negotiating better terms for you-- they make that HARDER.
harder when times for workers are good, and workers are in short supply. Easier when times are bad, and work is in short supply. What is more important ?
AS to the free market being mythical, thats akin to saying gravity is mythical
For a single electron at room temperature, gravity is mythical i.e. it's effects is negligible
What I ment by this is the following: when a single employee plans how much he wants to work, He CANNOT market his working hours per his choice, and their market-value.
This means that when his work demands from him a 70-Hr week, week after week, he cannot practically tell his boss: "I want to work just 50-Hrs a week, pay me less if that's what you think I deserve, but this is what I'm willing to give"
This kind of negotiation practically can usually be done only by MANY workers when united.
This is what I mean when I say that in some scales a free market is mythical: some freedoms (like the freedom to LIMIT your work-time, even at a financial cost) cannot usually be achieved
The only way a free market can not work is if people refuse to participate-- otherwise by definition you have a free market. Before you discount the free market so quickly-- you should look at what you see as really wrong with it-- and I'm confident you will discover that whats' really causing the distortions you don't like are government interference. Not problems with the free market.
What is wrong with it, is that a completely free market can lead to less free people , like the above example. And I do not see how governments are the cause of this, I'll be glad to be enlightended in this matter.
AT its root, people who hate the free market fall into two camps:
I do not hate the free market. I consider it's pros and cons, and find it a flawed nescecity, like unions. I hate limiting the freedom of people. Both unions and large employers are needed, but are needed to be kept in check.
fall into two camps: Those who want tyranny and want slaves instead of free people, and those who think they want free people but at the same time want people to not be responsible for their own actions. I suspect you fall into the latter.
It is a good salesman which restricts every question into just 2 options
I do think I want free people. I want people to be free to tell their employer: you cannot fire me just because I refuse to work more than we bargained for. For most people, especially those who have families, security INCREASES freedom.
I, in short, wants a balance: I don't want communism, where security abolishes freedom and productivity, but I don't want unchecked capitalism, where lack of security practically abolishes freedom.
I want people to have ambition, to strive to improve their life and their children's prospects, and to have freedom to do so. I also want them to have the freedom to say: enough. My ambition goes obly so far, and I want to spend 2-3 hours a day with my wife and kids. If the consequence is a lesser pay, than they have that choice. If they cannot do that w/o getting fired, then they do not have that choice, and are practically NOT responsible for their own time.
does that sound unreasonable in any way ?
As to unions, they're just another name for the mob
... the samurai lost, eventually .
... to the eventual loss of both.
Spoken like a true samurai. Confidant in your (I assume) competance as an individual Techy, you restrict all employer-employee interacion to single combat^H^H^H^H^H^H programer-employer negotiations, implying that organized-workers are immoral (they are just "mob").
immoral they may or may not be, but don't forget one thing
And are unions, BTW, worse than employing corporations, which are also large armies^H^H^H^H^H organizations, usually quite a bit more powerful than a single hacker ?
don't get me wrong, I'm a techy myself (Math, C.S. and Phys. at different academic levels), and I think a man should be paid per his own worth. But I also belive that the notion of a free market, and free choice for workers, is many times more of a myth than reality. A myth which does NOT benefit the workers in the long run.
I think unions suck. But there has to be a balancing force to raw capitalism, or the peasents will revolt against the equity lords
To put a gross mathematical picture, capitalism and progress are driven by a high derivative of the income distribution. Too uniform a distribution and society suffocates, as in comunism. Too much inequality, however, and the "mob", i.e. most of the people, will revolt, throwing down the system. So balance should to be reached before that point, and what will be the returning force from the over-capitalistic side ?
I see no such balancing powers today, and do not know if there are other options than worker-unions. I can't think of any. I hope someone will. But either way, careful consideration of the notions of organized labor is needed also for tech workers, not an over simplistic (IMHO) moral rejection.
these are entirely different issues which have already been solved via lawsuit (or so I thought).
...
I belive you are naive in thinking that a lawsuit solves this. For starters, I belive you are referring to a civil (damages) suit against the tobacco industries. This suit may or may not punish the companies involved at some time in the future, but marketting to kids is done now, and should be dealt with now. Even criminal-law is not quite successful when dealing with drug pushers, let a lone a civil suit which can take decades to completion. By the time it's complete, the culprits already retired on their fat bonuses.
This is, to make an understatement, a quite poor deterence
What I'm trying to say is that tobacco is marketted to kids now. It needs to be taken care off now, and not by some lawsuit to affect distant future profits.
What I said was that selective *taxing* of certain markets is unfair and creates more problems than it solves. It weakens the foundation of the free market system, which is built upon equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome)
Again, why unfair, and against whom ?
Why shouldn't the government encourage some issues that aren't very profitable to the stock owners (like public transportation, public health, various non-profit organizations ) by tax-exemptions and even public-funding (and also public scrutiny !) ?
On the same note, why shouldn't the government discourage endevours which are very profitable to a small interest group (stock owners), but creates major health and financial damages to society as a whole ?
the way I see it, free market (ideally) brings you to fluctuations around a least-energy solution. This does not mean this solution is the best for society. Applying constraints through taxation changes profitablities, thus creating a new equilibrium. Their is, IMHO, nothing sacred about the non-constrained solutions. It is by their benefit to society that solutions should be measured.
It is true that too much constraints will bring bad, unsustainable solutions, but no constraints at all bring bad solutions as well. Witness the situation during the great depression, when american people starved, even though there was enough agricultural product for them.
Equal opportunity should be given to people, not to industries or even professions. Those should be judged on profitability as well as on the base of their contribution (pos. or neg.) to society, which is a political decision.
The child prostitute issue is a silly comparison because children do not have the same rights as adults. And for good reason: Children are not experienced enough in the world to make the same decisions as adults.
I agree children have more rights than adults, and are more vulnerable. I belive people who prey on them, with proven negative health results, should be criminally punished. This is so both for direct means (like giving a "candy" at a party) and for indirect means ( i.e. various marketting tricks specificly tailored for that audience, and used on it.)
If you believe that the tobacco industry does not target kids and adulescent, than we disagree on issue of guilt. If you believe that even if they do prey on children, than there is no such similarity with other child-abusers, we disagree on values.
Sorry, but this analogy is dead wrong. A rapist conducts his business on an involuntary basis, using force, to achieve his goals. This is a violation of the most basic human right of all -- the right to be secure in your posessions (in this case, yourself). The act of dealing drugs, however distasteful or immoral you consider it, is an entirely voluntary, non-coercive practice. This is the fundamental difference between rape (an act of force on an un-consenting person) and the selling/marketing of drugs (a voluntary exchange between consenting adults).
I repeat the point: when dealing with adults in a normal situation then I agree. Freedom cannot be guarded w/o allowing adult people to take risks. But I was refering to child-seduction case.
How many do you need for that? We already dumped almost half a Mars mission of funding into that tin can.
...).
... humans are the most capable ...
... )
I think studying remote work technology is at least as important.
Perhaps the ISS is a budget-sink, I believe, however, that human colonization of space certainly isn't. For this we need both RC research, and long-term human space-habitat R&D. The ISS may be a flawed, over-priced means for this target (to this I agree), but the target itself is worthwhile. Actually, IMHO,it is one of the most worthwhile targets humanity has today, if it wishes to survive, much more so than a Mars 'mission' (though, as a researcher, I do not object to scientific research, Quite the contrary
Including the remote humans behind the controls and 3D cameras
I beg to disagree, for the following reasons:
1) time delay. A human several seconds away is less capable.
( Oh, and BTW, for the purpose of a mars mission this 4..20 light-MINUTES away, as the pathfinder incident painfully demonstrate
2) Robotics, AFAIK, is currently nowhere near to achieve the versatility, flexibility, sensory abilities, self-healing and various other advantages of a pair of human hands. Not to mention the natural control mechanisms (healthy) humans have for them, and for the motion of the torso.
Though it is true that for some applications outside the normal parameters (scale, or repetetiveness) of human-action, (like micro-surgery, or handling large structures, or many identical actions on a production line), robotic extensions can be better than the natural mechanisms, it is still not so for most non-simple , human-scale activities.
It may be so one day, but it sure isn't today.
Why can't they put something like this in the International Space Station to do experiments instead of expensive, risky humans?
wasn't one of the targets for the ISS is to learn more about humans working in space ?
also, don't forget that educated, capable humans are still the smartest, most adaptable machinery known, by quite a large margin
So, as you say, there are other options. These other options are the very essence of democracy. You use the term "war". The democratic way can be summarized by the understanding that not every conflict is a war, and that there are usually better, less extreme (and more effective) ways of setteling most differences than murdering your neighbour. Even if he really pisses you off.
To be more general, use of power, by the state AND internal entities (including citizens) is not evil by itself, but it needs to be smart, careful, and roughly proportional to the wrong you are trying to fix. Taking a life is the ultimate use of force, and is to be taken only when life or health itself is threatened. Even so, unless in immediate self-defense, this ultimate force should be moderated by the democratic processes, so that the state will not degenerate into either a pile of cancerous gangsters, or a homicidal dictatorship.
This is what I answer to grishnakh, as well. Yes, Nazi soldiers and their leaders had loved ones, Bin Laden and his death-worshipping followers have loved ones, but they are people who threatened (and actually executed) life itself. Against such actions, use of lethal force is not only justified, it is compulsory.
The DMCA, and even it's worse successors, SSCCA or whatever the acronym is today, does not directly threaten life. So resist it democratically, learn from the great Gandhi. If Gandhi would have fought the Nazis or Bin-Laden, he probably would not have been successful, but against the british, he was. Because they had the integrity to be ashamed. Because they had the moral framework I still belive most of the americans possess. You americans have a democracy, and a generally democratic people. It is a great, rare gift: use it appropriately, change it carefully and efficiently, don't destroy it for the purpose of protecting it.
some one needs to take out BayTSP, or at least a couple people over there. Take one for the rest of us
Man, are you mad ? You are soliciting for a murder ! even if this was not a major felony (and rightly so !), Do you really think the DMCA is worth taking a man's life in cold blood ?
These guys at BayTSP, snivelling little moral wretches that they are, have families, parents, wives you suggest to widdow, children you wish to orphan. Think about the consequences of what you say !
You do sound like a terrorist. The real, fanatic, psichopathic kind. I hope it's because you wrote w/o thinking, not because you really are. Humanity has far too many of those.
What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software? Talk about an effective technique to get people to switch to Linux!! Seriously, we'd all probably lose some friends along the way,
some friends ? you'd probably lose all of them, for a good reason. Every one is human, and good friends criticize your shortcomings, but do not prey on, or exploit them.
Your suggestion leads towards a society of fanatic, obnoxious little snitches, like the one my friends from the former USSR describe. It is a cure much worse than the disease.
The only application I use for a non-hobby purpose outside of work. I'm not sure it's so easy to run it on windows, though.
Sorry, but this sort of selective taxing is completely unfair (to both industry and consumers),
...
why, oh why should the government be "fair" to a certain industry ? Politics is, in it's very essence, the process of deciding what is worthy of the tax-payer's money and what isn't. Your notion of fairness is a notion of equality-of-industries. but some industries are beneficial, some are hurting society, why treat them equally ?
economically ungrounded,
economy is a part of the human society interplay, it is not the only metric by which an idea should be judged.
and designed to benefit only special interest groups.
so according to you:
"public health" == special interest group
"tobbaco-lords profits" != special interest group
interesting interpretation of language.
The tobacco industry, as much as you may despise it, is providing the supply of a product -- on a voluntary basis -- which is in demand and always will be. Thus the tobacco industry, like it or not, does indeed "benefit mankind"
when you are talking about consenting adults, I agree. However, tobbaco companies, indeed like their unlawful siblings, the addicting-drug industry, makes it a strategic habit to influence the weaker, more succeptible parts of society, the children and adulescents. This the pushers do in full, cynical knowledge that they need to create the addiction before a rational, adult person, able to make an informed, rational decision is formed.
Your argument for "existing demand" is therefore the moral equivalent of saying that there's an "existing need" for child prostitutes in thailand, and that therefore if the children (most of which are sold w/o understanding the consequences) do it "voluntarilly" (usually because they need to eat), so there's no moral problem in being a child pimp, and anyway, one shouldn't be unfair to the child-prostitution industry.
In my view, one of the functions of society is the need to protect it's weak parts from brutal exploiters like the companies you protect. This is why I pay my taxes, so that pushers and other children-abusers will not get access to our children, at least not before they are grown enough to stand on their own mental feet.
Now wether or not outlawing tobacco or other addicting drugs is effective, that's a different question, but saying that pushers "fulfil a need" is like saying the rapist "fulfils the need" of the child victim, which is too young to say no (so it means he/she wanted it, doesn't it ? => there exists a demand, doesn't it ? and anyway, one shouldn't be unfair to the child-mollesting industry ).
I hope this will make you reconsider your values
Maybe because they're moving at identical speeds in opposite directions under the influence of a magnetic field?
...
...
I'm not really sure. How do they know the magnetic configurstion around that N.S. ? and besides, these waves are supposed, AFAI understand, to be composed of electron-positron plasmas, I sincerely doubt they have the resolution required to plot single particles' trajectories
My guess is that such a claim is probably based on spectroscopy :
1) take a strong wavelength
2) substruct (probably do some kind of reverse integral transform) doppler,
3) get e+-e- anhilation energy
4) 1+2+3 => e+-e- plasma portion.
I can't reasonably think on any other plausible way, but then again, I'll be glad to find out
what other chip manufacturers are there to fill in the gap? Here's a clue: None.
today, there are none, but if the (larger) non-american market realy rejects TCPA and the hardware, AND intel and AMD will refuse to fill that need (highly unlikely, IMHO, they will go where profit is), then new contenders will arrise. Not in a day. Not in a year. But they will.
Now the battle is in the court of consumer acceptance. As [insert favorite deity here] is my witness, I will NOT buy ANYTHING that has anything to do with Palladium. Let's see how many others have the same resolve.
again, I tend to think foreign goverments and buisnesses will be quite shy about such "improvements". Not because they like freedom (goverments seldom do), but because they understand the meaning of control, and will NOT want to give it to MS, AMD, or intel.
Bad example. India invade Kashmir? The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. My personal opinion is that to call this an invasion would be a stretch . The case for this is marginal, to slim at best. The only time India may conceivably have 'invaded' Kashmir, in 1947, in response to a request by the legal ruler of the state [admittedly under pressure]..
OK, viewed in that context, I wrote something too extreme, I clarify: I did not mean (though it can be interpreted that way) india is making a habit of invading either it's neighbours or Kashmir, but for rebuttal, I showed a case of invasion. (BTW, when a leader under duress invites foreign forces in, that constitutes an invasion, AFAIK.)
Due disclosure: am Indian
have no quarrel with you, or your country. notice that in my original post I specificly did NOT claim India was an active threat to the rest of the world, only that it is larger and more powerful by several o.o.m. than Israel, thus being a larger potential threat than Israel can ever conceivably be.
kidding aside, I could think of much worse ways to use $10^9 than donating to alternative energy storage research, or to futuristic interplanetary-propulsion research.
The size of a country has little to do with how many enemies they have.
...
it has to do with its danger to the rest of the world, which was your original claim.
can a mouse, no matter how many enemies it has, realisticly pose more of a threat than an grisly ? get real.
Also Israel has effectivly been in a state of civil war for over half a century.
so is Israel weak or strong ? if it cannot control a 'civil-war' for half a century, how can it be a danger to other nations ? make up your mind.
The facts, as usual with your posts in this thread, are different. Israel has had civil war ONCE. and that is in 1948. It had clashes with arab citizens, and an uprising in the west-bank and gaza, which were occupied, but never joined to the state of israel.
In all of these, it is true there was a certain threat (mainly terror, not anihilation) from arab-citizens of israel, but never anything remotely like a civil-war (for examples of real civil wars, lookup spain, or the US, to get the concept ).
read a history book, it will do you good.
Only one of these countries makes a habit of invading it's neighbours
Hello ? does the name Kashmir ring any bells ? I repeat my advice, read some history.
ignoring UN resolutions
Ahh, that unbiassed, appolitical body, the UN, some of its soldiers actively helped abduct israelly soldiers from within it's border. Ignoring its resolutions is really raving lunacy. Only the antichrist can ignore the words of such a holy, pristine, uncorrupt entity.
and even tried to sink a US navy ship.
This I don't know much about, so, surprize, surprize, will not respond on.
But even if this were true, to project from such an incident on the relative threat to human-kind, is really quite an impressive logical leap. Or should I say, a leap of faith
As for danger to rest of the world India is far less of an issue than Israel
this is either blind prejudice or blind ignorance. But just in case someone doesn't know the facts, I'll bite:
size of India : 2,973,190 sq km
Area - comparative: slightly more than one-third the size of the US
# of citizens : 1,029,991,145 (July 2001 est.)
these data (unlike your prepostrous claim) are not blown out of my ass, but can be found here
size of Israel : 20,330 sq km
Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey
# of israelly citizens : 5,938,093 (yes, that's six millions, not billions
again, this is from the same source
so, wether or not India should be viewed as a potential threat by the US, it is a laughable to claim a country the size of New Jersy, with 1/200 the population of india, is anywhere near the military threat that can potentially be posed by india.
(this is not to say india is a threat to the US, just that Israel and India are of completely different o.o.m.
but, I suspect mpe will not let such shaky facts stand in the way of his solid prejudices.
I mean, how many valid emails can you possibly have that both have scientific terms and words like "hot teen sex." Unless, of course, it's a scientific study about either spam, or hot teen sex.
...
well, for "hot teen sex", or "novel penis enlargement techniques available today !!" spam, I guess you're right. but for "get your mortguage now!", or for "cheap toner at amazing prices!" kind of spam this seems more tricky.
Unless, of course, I'm completely wrong about this whole thing and just don't realize it, which is sometimes far more likely than I approve of.
I'm no expert either, just skepticaly paranoid
IIUC, The proposed method normalizes (with Ln norm) over the number of words, for "spammishness" and "unspammishness" of words, combining the results.
whats stoping the spammers from attaching, say, a random scientific article longer than the spam at the end of the spam message ? This will give the spam a high grade in these bayesian method in general, but more so with his normalizing metric.
because Clinton was a brilliant man, however flawed, and Bush is simply above-average
1) above-average intelectually ?
2) AFAIR, president Clinton was a briliant woman
P.S. I know you were trolling.
he wasn't trolling, he was drolling. and very nicely so, IMHO.
lighten up