maybe we'll even see an end to this glut of lobster! Disgusting bottom feeders.... they remind me of lawyers.
Hmmm... Lawyers? To me, lobsters taste more like lobsters than lawyers. Young lawyers are a bit more "porkish" while salespeople and older lawyers (called "politicians" in the food columns) are just nasty - don't eat them.
The trouble is that the R's keep putting in people who look worse and worse to D's and vice-versa. Hooray for the gerrymander. And, since we have FPTP voting, any vote against the guy who barely acknowledges your point of view is automatically a vote for the guy who actively works against your views. From the point of view of the incumbents in safe districts, this is a win. For everyone else? Not so much.
You want to actually have people vote for someone on the other side? Start having the other side stop pandering so much to their base so that they scare away the other side.
Better yet, if your state has a ballot initiative system, start working with groups who are trying to promote IRV or some other voting system. Get that on the ballot. Also, start working to get money out of politics, even if it means a constitutional amendment to do so. Do whatever you can. All of these are better ideas to solve this problem when "throwing a bum out" gets you someone worse in return.
Something's going to give, just not sure we're at the point where people are fed up enough to organize in a meaningful way.
The problem is that it's a lot easier to organize a bunch of people together as a lynch mob or revolutionary cadre than as a union. God knows how our country came out of the thirties without a revolution. I don't think we could this time. I'm thinking democracy's time has finally come, overwhelmed by the power of inequitable wealth distribution (exacerbated by improved technology devaluing labor) and the fact that most people had just enough that they didn't have to care about things as messy as politics.
What to do about it? I have no clue. It would probably start with "being nice to others" and end with "incentives against wealth accumulation past a certain point", said point to be determined by plebiscite rather than by representation. But I'm a bit of a dreamer.
We'll probably muddle through until it gets bad enough that some asshole (my prediction is Southern, Christian, and white) comes along to start the revolution (which usually means "let's put me into the oligarch class rather than the assholes who are already there") which ends in a civil war and/or a fascist dictatorship. Then we'll die. Go USA!
There's a preprint of what seems to be a more complete paper on the work hosted on arxiv. There's a bit more math in it, but it's still somewhat understandable: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3160.pdf.
The best way you could respond to a fellow human being who is in pain is to chastise him because how he searches for comfort doesn't suit you? Really?
I'm sorry for whatever it is you must be feeling in your life to think you needed to make a post like this. We all have blind spots, so I'm assuming that this was simply a miscalculation on your part. You could have done better. You might want to think about that.
BPA has been under investigation for years as a hotbed of cronyism and nepotistic hiring. Most of the adjustments you talk about are due to systematic and endemic discrimination earlier. Using BPA as an example of normal government hiring practices makes about as much sense as using a diabetic patient as a model for a healthy human.
Due to the AP exams I took, I was able to proficiency out of Freshman Rhetoric/Intro Writing course, as well as three credit hours each of Social Sciences and the Humanities. These were granted as credits counting towards my degree. Of course, this was back in '78, too, so things might have changed.
Very well, actually. It takes some smarts in the dataflow graph construction, but it does work (we're also not talking about the same type of code, but processing of back-references in the flowgraph - there are actually good functional algorithms that have better amortized costs (see Chris Okasaki's Purely Functional Data Structures for examples).
That being said, the main issue with dataflow was that the dataflow nodes were always proposed at the level of granularity of a Von Neumann instruction set. In fact, you can see it as a dependency graph to be executed on a machine having an "infinite" number of registers. This should give one a clue that, since register spills are not particularly frequent, the performance gain from dataflow at the high level should not be great.
That being said, almost all high-performance machines today are dataflow at the micro level with the evaluation of "instruction nodes" being enabled when their operands become available, while the instruction flow itself is statically ordered. Think of it as a dataflow graph with additional links to make sure that things happen in a specific order.
Dataflow only becomes interesting when you have computational nodes distributed among memory in a manner that allows very low memory latency and massive parallelism (which, to be honest, functional dataflow languages have an easier time getting right than parallel procedural languages). However, most of those gains are coming from being able to get more parallelism, not from any quality of dataflow as a paradigm.
All that being said, all ideas in computer architecture seem to come back on a 25-or-so-year cycle. Which means it's probably time to look at dataflow again. The outcome probably won't be much different, though, as speed increases over this period have been in the long-term storage areas (SSDs vs. MHDs) and those objects don't really figure in much at the instruction level. OS? Yes. Instruction level (which is where dataflow is at)? No. However, new dataflow ASICs, FPGAs, etc. would be cool to play with.
I think this is a bad ruling, too, but the real reason that poor teachers disproportionately affect minority students is that (a) in many under-performing school districts, the student body has an over-abundance of minority students, as the non-minority students have decamped to private institutions and (b) better teachers take plum jobs in better performing public schools with fewer lower-income and/or minority (aka lower performing) kids, leaving the worse teachers in the lower-performing schools. You don't need political machinations to explain this ruling when simple statistics will do.
And, yes, "If they were so concerned about poor and minority students, they would equalize education in all the districts, and bring back the low-cost taxpayer-supported public universities in California."
Finally, yes - I use generalizations. YMMV depending on the particular kid, but statistically, the reasoning is sound.
I don't find it nearly as far-fetched as you do. Do you realize how likely you'd be to die from a fractured jaw back in those times? Today we have surgery, drugs, etc. to repair these things in (relatively) short order - back then you just starved to death because you couldn't eat. Does survival make enough of a "meritocracy" for you (whatever the hell "merit" has to do with evolution)?
This is no more highly speculative than the other work by folks who try to figure out what dinosaurs looked like based on partial skeletons and what pressures drove their evolution in this direction. But, if you don't accept that work either, guess what? Science doesn't care.
The "you seem to be over-complicating" line shows you've never worked in publishing. Typesetting is more than picking fonts and dicking about with chapter headings. Try out specialized fonts for math faces, together with laying out formulas so they look good. Try re-kerning and manually breaking lines when they don't look right (which can happen with long words found in technical and/or programming text). Nice little sidebars and graphics to keep the user interested? That doesn't get inserted by the author. Publishers do a lot to make the books you read better. Look at some of the atrocious self-published dreck (usually offered for very low prices on Amazon) to see what crap you get when a publisher isn't involved.
TL;DR version - authors aren't editors, designers, book production specialists, salesmen, or marketers. Publishers provide all of these things to them and usually do a pretty good job. They are worth what they charge.
Because the studios don't want another online sales channel to undercut their physical DVD sales (because their profit is higher on the latter). Because Netflix wouldn't make enough money from this service to offset the legal hassle that would come if they didn't play by the studios rules. Netflix is already being slightly bent over by its peers for network access - it doesn't need another hassle. Finally, if you press on some marginal activity like this, the studios might stop working with you altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe we'll even see an end to this glut of lobster! Disgusting bottom feeders.... they remind me of lawyers.
Hmmm... Lawyers? To me, lobsters taste more like lobsters than lawyers. Young lawyers are a bit more "porkish" while salespeople and older lawyers (called "politicians" in the food columns) are just nasty - don't eat them.
Sounds "fair and balanced" to me.
The trouble is that the R's keep putting in people who look worse and worse to D's and vice-versa. Hooray for the gerrymander. And, since we have FPTP voting, any vote against the guy who barely acknowledges your point of view is automatically a vote for the guy who actively works against your views. From the point of view of the incumbents in safe districts, this is a win. For everyone else? Not so much.
You want to actually have people vote for someone on the other side? Start having the other side stop pandering so much to their base so that they scare away the other side.
Better yet, if your state has a ballot initiative system, start working with groups who are trying to promote IRV or some other voting system. Get that on the ballot. Also, start working to get money out of politics, even if it means a constitutional amendment to do so. Do whatever you can. All of these are better ideas to solve this problem when "throwing a bum out" gets you someone worse in return.
Something's going to give, just not sure we're at the point where people are fed up enough to organize in a meaningful way.
The problem is that it's a lot easier to organize a bunch of people together as a lynch mob or revolutionary cadre than as a union. God knows how our country came out of the thirties without a revolution. I don't think we could this time. I'm thinking democracy's time has finally come, overwhelmed by the power of inequitable wealth distribution (exacerbated by improved technology devaluing labor) and the fact that most people had just enough that they didn't have to care about things as messy as politics.
What to do about it? I have no clue. It would probably start with "being nice to others" and end with "incentives against wealth accumulation past a certain point", said point to be determined by plebiscite rather than by representation. But I'm a bit of a dreamer.
We'll probably muddle through until it gets bad enough that some asshole (my prediction is Southern, Christian, and white) comes along to start the revolution (which usually means "let's put me into the oligarch class rather than the assholes who are already there") which ends in a civil war and/or a fascist dictatorship. Then we'll die. Go USA!
There's a preprint of what seems to be a more complete paper on the work hosted on arxiv. There's a bit more math in it, but it's still somewhat understandable: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3160.pdf.
The best way you could respond to a fellow human being who is in pain is to chastise him because how he searches for comfort doesn't suit you? Really?
I'm sorry for whatever it is you must be feeling in your life to think you needed to make a post like this. We all have blind spots, so I'm assuming that this was simply a miscalculation on your part. You could have done better. You might want to think about that.
Yo!
I like big clouds and I cannot lie...
BPA has been under investigation for years as a hotbed of cronyism and nepotistic hiring. Most of the adjustments you talk about are due to systematic and endemic discrimination earlier. Using BPA as an example of normal government hiring practices makes about as much sense as using a diabetic patient as a model for a healthy human.
Only a idiot hands someone a screwdriver when they've asked for a hammer.
I never thought I'd ever see a guy being pleased because his was smaller!
There are many places named Portland, but only one Portland - you know, the one that has a TV show named after it.
Due to the AP exams I took, I was able to proficiency out of Freshman Rhetoric/Intro Writing course, as well as three credit hours each of Social Sciences and the Humanities. These were granted as credits counting towards my degree. Of course, this was back in '78, too, so things might have changed.
Very well, actually. It takes some smarts in the dataflow graph construction, but it does work (we're also not talking about the same type of code, but processing of back-references in the flowgraph - there are actually good functional algorithms that have better amortized costs (see Chris Okasaki's Purely Functional Data Structures for examples).
That being said, the main issue with dataflow was that the dataflow nodes were always proposed at the level of granularity of a Von Neumann instruction set. In fact, you can see it as a dependency graph to be executed on a machine having an "infinite" number of registers. This should give one a clue that, since register spills are not particularly frequent, the performance gain from dataflow at the high level should not be great.
That being said, almost all high-performance machines today are dataflow at the micro level with the evaluation of "instruction nodes" being enabled when their operands become available, while the instruction flow itself is statically ordered. Think of it as a dataflow graph with additional links to make sure that things happen in a specific order.
Dataflow only becomes interesting when you have computational nodes distributed among memory in a manner that allows very low memory latency and massive parallelism (which, to be honest, functional dataflow languages have an easier time getting right than parallel procedural languages). However, most of those gains are coming from being able to get more parallelism, not from any quality of dataflow as a paradigm.
All that being said, all ideas in computer architecture seem to come back on a 25-or-so-year cycle. Which means it's probably time to look at dataflow again. The outcome probably won't be much different, though, as speed increases over this period have been in the long-term storage areas (SSDs vs. MHDs) and those objects don't really figure in much at the instruction level. OS? Yes. Instruction level (which is where dataflow is at)? No. However, new dataflow ASICs, FPGAs, etc. would be cool to play with.
They have all the same due process recourse everyone else has...
I.e, in most US states, none.
I think this is a bad ruling, too, but the real reason that poor teachers disproportionately affect minority students is that (a) in many under-performing school districts, the student body has an over-abundance of minority students, as the non-minority students have decamped to private institutions and (b) better teachers take plum jobs in better performing public schools with fewer lower-income and/or minority (aka lower performing) kids, leaving the worse teachers in the lower-performing schools. You don't need political machinations to explain this ruling when simple statistics will do.
And, yes, "If they were so concerned about poor and minority students, they would equalize education in all the districts, and bring back the low-cost taxpayer-supported public universities in California."
Finally, yes - I use generalizations. YMMV depending on the particular kid, but statistically, the reasoning is sound.
I don't find it nearly as far-fetched as you do. Do you realize how likely you'd be to die from a fractured jaw back in those times? Today we have surgery, drugs, etc. to repair these things in (relatively) short order - back then you just starved to death because you couldn't eat. Does survival make enough of a "meritocracy" for you (whatever the hell "merit" has to do with evolution)?
This is no more highly speculative than the other work by folks who try to figure out what dinosaurs looked like based on partial skeletons and what pressures drove their evolution in this direction. But, if you don't accept that work either, guess what? Science doesn't care.
You didn't miss it. It wasn't there. A major, major methodological issue.
Also known as the "Anyone who uses Wikipedia as an authoritative source is an idiot" issue.
this analogy is collapsing faster than a... something something.
... glass house in a blender?
... poodle under an elephant's foot?
... signal in a Nine Inch Nails concert?
Do I win?
They only put the black electrons in the prisons.
Yes, and virus designers already use this technique to defeat signature scanners in AV programs.
Just as incompetent as the old boss.
AOL must have single-handedly doubled the CO2 output of the earth during the 1980's and '90's.
The "you seem to be over-complicating" line shows you've never worked in publishing. Typesetting is more than picking fonts and dicking about with chapter headings. Try out specialized fonts for math faces, together with laying out formulas so they look good. Try re-kerning and manually breaking lines when they don't look right (which can happen with long words found in technical and/or programming text). Nice little sidebars and graphics to keep the user interested? That doesn't get inserted by the author. Publishers do a lot to make the books you read better. Look at some of the atrocious self-published dreck (usually offered for very low prices on Amazon) to see what crap you get when a publisher isn't involved.
TL;DR version - authors aren't editors, designers, book production specialists, salesmen, or marketers. Publishers provide all of these things to them and usually do a pretty good job. They are worth what they charge.
Maybe. The exception that proves the rule?
Because the studios don't want another online sales channel to undercut their physical DVD sales (because their profit is higher on the latter). Because Netflix wouldn't make enough money from this service to offset the legal hassle that would come if they didn't play by the studios rules. Netflix is already being slightly bent over by its peers for network access - it doesn't need another hassle. Finally, if you press on some marginal activity like this, the studios might stop working with you altogether.
Is this enough, or need I go on?