Can't even figure out if I agree with you. I'd ask you to clarify what you mean, but right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you and don't even see a nit that could be picked. Just an ACK as I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent. This is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Interesting discussion. Clarification: I think China would NOT stay in North Korea, but only conquer it long enough to remove the nuclear stuff and the main troublemakers. This discussion caused me to speculate if they might build a wall on the border as they leave. I'd like to say more, but...
Right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you, though there might be some nits that could be picked. However, right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you, though there are always some nits that could be picked. However, right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you, though there are some nits that could be picked. However, right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
What could possibly go wrong? Imagine the convenience for your local police officers!
I've always wondered what they are listening to in their little earphones, but with this technology incorporated into their body cameras, it's going to be like this:
"Suspect 1: Man in red hat, 30 yards away at heading 25 degrees. 12 actionable offenses, probability 65% of jail time. Suspect 2: Woman in brown skirt, 55 yards away at heading 350 degrees. 4 actionable offenses, but she'll probably offer sexual favors for release. Suspect 3: Man in suit, 20 yards away at 55 degrees. 71 felony offenses, but close friend of the mayor, 2% chance of collecting a fine. Select 0 for additional suspects."
This was so obvious even before the enthronement ceremony that I'm shocked even Slashdot regards it as news. (I'm being told you Americans prefer the obscure terminology "inauguration" for some silly reason?)
Snowden was merely a target of opportunity that Putin seized upon to embarrass that Obama fellow. Apparently still regarded him as some sort of worthy adversary or some such. Now that America's democracy has been hoisted upon its own petards, Snowden has certainly outlived his usefulness.
Then again, perhaps Putin shouldn't count too heavily on his buddy-buddy relationship? I'm believing the reports of #PresidentTweety's increasingly erratic behavior. Maybe he'll go nuts and trigger the 25th even before he has a REAL presidential crisis? Snowden might be a more valuable chip if saved for Pence?
All of the angry mobsters protesting about concatenation obviously didn't watch the entire video.
No one commented on the acknowledgement to Alex Bellos that appears in the video. He wrote a couple of excellent books on mathematical topics, and I'm glad to recommend them. I guess the lack of related comments indicates that the angry mobsters who actually did watch the entire video didn't watch it that closely or they don't read that much.
Having said that, I have to regard it as an amusing trick, but not really that profound. The introductory over-dramatization of the video probably might merit a bit of criticism.
When I considered the description of the problem I was actually quite puzzled, but even if I knew the solution I hope I wouldn't have reacted like the angry mob that Slashdot is devolving into. My initial confusion regarded extremely large numbers and the increasingly large gaps I expected to appear as you juggled your small supply of digits.
Meanwhile the most frequent Slashdot reaction was to attack the problem. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "most frequent" since I didn't really tally all of the comments for positive and negative sentiments, but I can certainly say that all of the negative ones I saw (and there were bunch of them) could have been filed under "If you have nothing to say, then why don't you say nothing."
Now if I were a real mathematician, I'd be off studying the generalized cases... How many of which digit will suffice?
I feel like I have to clarify that your example (though interesting) seems to fit within my definition of "newish". For "oldish" I was thinking of windmills used for grinding grain and pumping water. However, on second thought you are probably right unless I try to retroactively restrict it to reasonably large-scale production of electricity. Doesn't seem fair even if I was thinking along those lines at the time...
Anyway, I am pretty certain that we had hydroelectric power plants not long after generators were developed... Just don't have time to research the issue right now.
(I'm reading your "hydro" as "hydroelectric" rather than "hydrocarbons".)
(And I still think the moderation system is badly broken to the point of meaninglessness. My comment certainly wasn't intended as "funny", but I might be missing the joke again.)
So you want to pursue the postscript? Okay, I don't mind (but there is no newsletter). I find it an amusing topic, but more so for face to face discussions... Managed to get a Singaporean perspective yesterday. (We even made a small wager on it.) (I've also discussed it with a number of mainland Chinese, but so far no one from Taiwan.)
Concrete evidence? Not really anything specific, though I've read a number of books about North Korea. Hard to find much available in English and it's not the kind of stuff I can easily read in Japanese. The most interesting (and in many ways insightful) book I can recall was by a French cartoonist who was hired to train North Korean animators when one of the fearless leaders had the inspiration of using cheap labor to compete in that industry. Improved computer animation obviously blew that idea out of the water. Most of the books I've seen on North Korea are Japanese perspectives, often focusing on the abductions.
My interest in China goes much farther back, though these days most of the memorable books have been comparison-and-contrast books against India. Used to be against Russia. Can't say I really know that much about Taiwan, though I feel like I have watched the Japanese shift their focus and interest back to the mainland side.
However I do see the current situation as a golden opportunity from the Chinese perspective. There are a number of time-critical factors, but all of the windows seem to be open right now. The window that is likely to close first is actually North Korea, because some evidence indicates that they are near collapse, and if that happens by itself, then the Chinese get nothing (or worse). However I think the two most important factors are whether the mainland's military superiority is sufficient to occupy Taiwan relatively cleanly (without demolishing too much infrastructure) and whether there would be any long-term resistance (along the lines of La Résistance).
Yesterday's discussion was largely focused on the question of internal cohesion within mainland China, but I actually see weakened internal cohesion as a concern that might motivate Peking in favor of the adventure. This is an angle where Trump's exact words about Taiwan might be relatively more important. (I'm taking it as a precondition that it will be easy to get him to agree with the idea of a Chinese invasion of North Korea.) If he strongly reassures them about the one-China policy, but manages to make it clear that only a peaceful unification is okay, then the propaganda value is limited, but I don't think Trump is up to anything that delicate and subtle. If Trump just agrees to one China and shuts up, then I'm not sure of the effect on Chinese side. However, I think it is quite likely that Trump is foolish enough to say something threatening about independent Taiwan, and I think that recording could be quite helpful in focusing Chinese popular opinion on defending the nation's honor and all that jazz.
If you [by] are replying to me, then where did you pull "federally-run" out of? Not anything I've written lately. And snail mail? Not one of my main concerns. It's the secret shotgun warrants that most concern me.
The funny part of this "discussion" is that there is apparently some consensus around my actual point, but my illustrative example has apparently driven some people nuts. Or maybe they are Russian trolls practicing their English while waiting for more serious assignments? Sort of joking, but I really can't figure out what is motivating them. I can't even figure out if your reply is sincere, but somehow confusing my comments with some other part of the conversation.
I doubt it will help, but let me try to clarify my position. "Possession is STILL 9 points of the law and retaining possession of our email will help give more meaning to the Bill of Rights." That's an American-centric perspective, but I think it would be good if it applied internationally, though the article is specifically focused on America.
In hopes of making the point clear, I sort of jumped the gun because I considered the most flagrant abuse which (IMO) involves email that is held by large email providers. Then I made the obvious mistake of showing how the problem could be ameliorated in the specific case of Gmail. I still think it was topical, but looking at the development of the "conversation", I feel obliged to apologize for being off topic. The connectivity which is obvious to me is not obvious to some other people.
Or maybe optimism about the sincerity of some vocal participants in Slashdot discussions is misplaced.
However, since you [by] have brought the feds into the discussion, I will try to respond briefly. I do think the feds could try to force email providers to protect our privacy more. I think that attempt would be unlikely to succeed. In contrast, a useful approach would be anti-monopoly pressure to encourage more competing email systems. As it applies to email, I think that would require mandating portability and extended forwarding services to make it easier to shift from one email system to another and avoid the lock-in effects.
Your inline approach is obviously confrontational. Might be sincere, too, but I doubt it, so I just scanned your reply before deciding to ignore it.
I've concluded that my proposed solution to one part of the problem has obscured the deeper issue of "possession". Even though Gmail may be the specific email service where privacy is most abused and even though (I believe) there is no good reason for that abuse, the discussion should be redirected back to the original topic of "Possession is STILL 9 points of the law".
I guess I should thank you [592200] for changing the subject when you diverted the discussion, but perhaps I should have simply said that I am not interested in that new subject. Upon reflection, I guess your real point is that you are a Luddite of some sort? You agree with me about the importance of possession and miss the old days when we had more direct control over our email? Or something.
Nothing except the willingness to spend the time and energy to understand all of the technical details and the time and money to implement them. If you put those barriers in front of all users of email, then you certainly will reduce the scope of the problem. Unfortunately, due to the network effects, the value of email would be greatly decreased.
Oh wait. Doesn't even work. You would have to force each of your correspondents to learn the same things and expend the same amounts of time and money.
Now I see that I have been drawn off chasing another shallow wild goose. I should have noticed the absence of any reference to "possession". Mea culpa.
Let me try to correct the course: I am (I would think obviously) NOT denying that secure email exists. I am suggesting that it should be available even for the peasants who want to use such convenient systems as Gmail.
My example was evidently not very helpful or even diversionary... I chose it largely because the google would claim they HAVE to (permanently) possess your email to provide the service, but the main point of "possession" is being lost. My proposed solution to that part of the problem has evidently obscured the problem...
Slashdot Mirror
Can't even figure out if I agree with you. I'd ask you to clarify what you mean, but right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you and don't even see a nit that could be picked. Just an ACK as I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent. This is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Z^1
Interesting discussion. Clarification: I think China would NOT stay in North Korea, but only conquer it long enough to remove the nuclear stuff and the main troublemakers. This discussion caused me to speculate if they might build a wall on the border as they leave. I'd like to say more, but...
Right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Z^7
Think I mostly agree with you, though there might be some nits that could be picked. However, right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you, though there are always some nits that could be picked. However, right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Think I mostly agree with you, though there are some nits that could be picked. However, right now I am in the process of putting my Slashdot affairs in order for another hiatus, perhaps permanent, so this is basically a boilerplate response drafted for the pending replies.
Z^6
What could possibly go wrong? Imagine the convenience for your local police officers!
I've always wondered what they are listening to in their little earphones, but with this technology incorporated into their body cameras, it's going to be like this:
"Suspect 1: Man in red hat, 30 yards away at heading 25 degrees. 12 actionable offenses, probability 65% of jail time. Suspect 2: Woman in brown skirt, 55 yards away at heading 350 degrees. 4 actionable offenses, but she'll probably offer sexual favors for release. Suspect 3: Man in suit, 20 yards away at 55 degrees. 71 felony offenses, but close friend of the mayor, 2% chance of collecting a fine. Select 0 for additional suspects."
This was so obvious even before the enthronement ceremony that I'm shocked even Slashdot regards it as news. (I'm being told you Americans prefer the obscure terminology "inauguration" for some silly reason?)
Snowden was merely a target of opportunity that Putin seized upon to embarrass that Obama fellow. Apparently still regarded him as some sort of worthy adversary or some such. Now that America's democracy has been hoisted upon its own petards, Snowden has certainly outlived his usefulness.
Then again, perhaps Putin shouldn't count too heavily on his buddy-buddy relationship? I'm believing the reports of #PresidentTweety's increasingly erratic behavior. Maybe he'll go nuts and trigger the 25th even before he has a REAL presidential crisis? Snowden might be a more valuable chip if saved for Pence?
Three footnotes after watching the rest of it...
All of the angry mobsters protesting about concatenation obviously didn't watch the entire video.
No one commented on the acknowledgement to Alex Bellos that appears in the video. He wrote a couple of excellent books on mathematical topics, and I'm glad to recommend them. I guess the lack of related comments indicates that the angry mobsters who actually did watch the entire video didn't watch it that closely or they don't read that much.
Having said that, I have to regard it as an amusing trick, but not really that profound. The introductory over-dramatization of the video probably might merit a bit of criticism.
When I considered the description of the problem I was actually quite puzzled, but even if I knew the solution I hope I wouldn't have reacted like the angry mob that Slashdot is devolving into. My initial confusion regarded extremely large numbers and the increasingly large gaps I expected to appear as you juggled your small supply of digits.
Meanwhile the most frequent Slashdot reaction was to attack the problem. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "most frequent" since I didn't really tally all of the comments for positive and negative sentiments, but I can certainly say that all of the negative ones I saw (and there were bunch of them) could have been filed under "If you have nothing to say, then why don't you say nothing."
Now if I were a real mathematician, I'd be off studying the generalized cases... How many of which digit will suffice?
I feel like I have to clarify that your example (though interesting) seems to fit within my definition of "newish". For "oldish" I was thinking of windmills used for grinding grain and pumping water. However, on second thought you are probably right unless I try to retroactively restrict it to reasonably large-scale production of electricity. Doesn't seem fair even if I was thinking along those lines at the time...
Anyway, I am pretty certain that we had hydroelectric power plants not long after generators were developed... Just don't have time to research the issue right now.
And so are coal and petroleum.
(I'm reading your "hydro" as "hydroelectric" rather than "hydrocarbons".)
(And I still think the moderation system is badly broken to the point of meaninglessness. My comment certainly wasn't intended as "funny", but I might be missing the joke again.)
So you want to pursue the postscript? Okay, I don't mind (but there is no newsletter). I find it an amusing topic, but more so for face to face discussions... Managed to get a Singaporean perspective yesterday. (We even made a small wager on it.) (I've also discussed it with a number of mainland Chinese, but so far no one from Taiwan.)
Concrete evidence? Not really anything specific, though I've read a number of books about North Korea. Hard to find much available in English and it's not the kind of stuff I can easily read in Japanese. The most interesting (and in many ways insightful) book I can recall was by a French cartoonist who was hired to train North Korean animators when one of the fearless leaders had the inspiration of using cheap labor to compete in that industry. Improved computer animation obviously blew that idea out of the water. Most of the books I've seen on North Korea are Japanese perspectives, often focusing on the abductions.
My interest in China goes much farther back, though these days most of the memorable books have been comparison-and-contrast books against India. Used to be against Russia. Can't say I really know that much about Taiwan, though I feel like I have watched the Japanese shift their focus and interest back to the mainland side.
However I do see the current situation as a golden opportunity from the Chinese perspective. There are a number of time-critical factors, but all of the windows seem to be open right now. The window that is likely to close first is actually North Korea, because some evidence indicates that they are near collapse, and if that happens by itself, then the Chinese get nothing (or worse). However I think the two most important factors are whether the mainland's military superiority is sufficient to occupy Taiwan relatively cleanly (without demolishing too much infrastructure) and whether there would be any long-term resistance (along the lines of La Résistance).
Yesterday's discussion was largely focused on the question of internal cohesion within mainland China, but I actually see weakened internal cohesion as a concern that might motivate Peking in favor of the adventure. This is an angle where Trump's exact words about Taiwan might be relatively more important. (I'm taking it as a precondition that it will be easy to get him to agree with the idea of a Chinese invasion of North Korea.) If he strongly reassures them about the one-China policy, but manages to make it clear that only a peaceful unification is okay, then the propaganda value is limited, but I don't think Trump is up to anything that delicate and subtle. If Trump just agrees to one China and shuts up, then I'm not sure of the effect on Chinese side. However, I think it is quite likely that Trump is foolish enough to say something threatening about independent Taiwan, and I think that recording could be quite helpful in focusing Chinese popular opinion on defending the nation's honor and all that jazz.
Z^5
Z^4
Z^3
If you [by] are replying to me, then where did you pull "federally-run" out of? Not anything I've written lately. And snail mail? Not one of my main concerns. It's the secret shotgun warrants that most concern me.
The funny part of this "discussion" is that there is apparently some consensus around my actual point, but my illustrative example has apparently driven some people nuts. Or maybe they are Russian trolls practicing their English while waiting for more serious assignments? Sort of joking, but I really can't figure out what is motivating them. I can't even figure out if your reply is sincere, but somehow confusing my comments with some other part of the conversation.
I doubt it will help, but let me try to clarify my position. "Possession is STILL 9 points of the law and retaining possession of our email will help give more meaning to the Bill of Rights." That's an American-centric perspective, but I think it would be good if it applied internationally, though the article is specifically focused on America.
In hopes of making the point clear, I sort of jumped the gun because I considered the most flagrant abuse which (IMO) involves email that is held by large email providers. Then I made the obvious mistake of showing how the problem could be ameliorated in the specific case of Gmail. I still think it was topical, but looking at the development of the "conversation", I feel obliged to apologize for being off topic. The connectivity which is obvious to me is not obvious to some other people.
Or maybe optimism about the sincerity of some vocal participants in Slashdot discussions is misplaced.
However, since you [by] have brought the feds into the discussion, I will try to respond briefly. I do think the feds could try to force email providers to protect our privacy more. I think that attempt would be unlikely to succeed. In contrast, a useful approach would be anti-monopoly pressure to encourage more competing email systems. As it applies to email, I think that would require mandating portability and extended forwarding services to make it easier to shift from one email system to another and avoid the lock-in effects.
More to say, but out of time now...
Z^2
Z^1
Your inline approach is obviously confrontational. Might be sincere, too, but I doubt it, so I just scanned your reply before deciding to ignore it.
I've concluded that my proposed solution to one part of the problem has obscured the deeper issue of "possession". Even though Gmail may be the specific email service where privacy is most abused and even though (I believe) there is no good reason for that abuse, the discussion should be redirected back to the original topic of "Possession is STILL 9 points of the law".
I guess I should thank you [592200] for changing the subject when you diverted the discussion, but perhaps I should have simply said that I am not interested in that new subject. Upon reflection, I guess your real point is that you are a Luddite of some sort? You agree with me about the importance of possession and miss the old days when we had more direct control over our email? Or something.
Nothing except the willingness to spend the time and energy to understand all of the technical details and the time and money to implement them. If you put those barriers in front of all users of email, then you certainly will reduce the scope of the problem. Unfortunately, due to the network effects, the value of email would be greatly decreased.
Oh wait. Doesn't even work. You would have to force each of your correspondents to learn the same things and expend the same amounts of time and money.
Now I see that I have been drawn off chasing another shallow wild goose. I should have noticed the absence of any reference to "possession". Mea culpa.
Let me try to correct the course: I am (I would think obviously) NOT denying that secure email exists. I am suggesting that it should be available even for the peasants who want to use such convenient systems as Gmail.
My example was evidently not very helpful or even diversionary... I chose it largely because the google would claim they HAVE to (permanently) possess your email to provide the service, but the main point of "possession" is being lost. My proposed solution to that part of the problem has evidently obscured the problem...
What part of shallow and feeble were you [592200] unable to understand?