Hit a nerve, did he? And with an ID three times lower than yours, I'd say that the chance Sycraft-fu is a troll after all his time on Slashdot, rather than actually speaking his mind, is next to nil (even though I often disagree with many of his views, something the moderating rules rightly specify you can't use as a basis of moderation). As for you, I've been reading your posts for some time, and can say that you calling someone else a troll is the height of hypocrisy. The painful truth is that you want him downmoderated because you disagree with his views, and — given the impassioned language of your post — your disagreement is pretty personal. If you get butthurt so easily, perhaps you should go to another discussion forum.
Wouldn't adding random timing jitter to the packets deal with the problem without using up more network resources with junk data? As long as the timing noise distribution between routers is not grossly dissimilar, that should work.
Mod parent down for not knowing that in the OpenGL specification documents the "gl" prefix that you otherwise find in actual code is omitted. The call has been available in NVIDIA and AMD drivers since the second half of last year, and is documented in the spec: https://www.opengl.org/registr... see "MultiDrawElementsIndirectCountARB" (again, the "gl" part is always omitted in spec documents). You dun goofed now, AC, and embarrassed yourself. So no, the actual call is not glMultiDrawElementsIndirect and is nowhere as restricted, because it has the critical difference that the count to draw is now also stored in a GPU buffer and thus can be written by the GPU. Combined with the bindless graphics NVIDIA extension and bindless textures in OpenGL 4.4, you can even set up the whole scene graph on the GPU. Finally, as for my experience--(re)writing a graphics engine is exactly what my team is doing. By the way, maybe you should post your comment also at the official opengl forums so the rest of us can too have a good laugh.
One draw call, glMultiDrawElementsIndirectCountARB(), per shader program (you can even avoid that by using shader subroutines so you're then doing one draw call per render pass).
It's not the RCMP; it's the Ontario Provincial police. Your joke doesn't work nearly as well when this story is about a mere regional police force and has no implications as to state policy.
This was the Ontario police, not the RCMP, and Ontario is governed by the Liberals. So, Vic and the other federal Conservatives have nothing to do with this. I bet you're not about to correct yourself and redirect your hate speech to your beloved Liberals, because, after all, you feel no shame in holding a double standard, amirite?
Regarding your signature, I've got (old) news for you: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because Popperian epistemology won, and evidence's only utility is for falsification and cannot be used to argue for an increased probability a theory is correct. The issue was argued into the 90s by people like Elby, but the outcome was clear at least a decade earlier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
Hipsterism is the practice of misdirection. Hipsters are lame people who have learned that attention is the scarcest human resource, so they can hide behind a few attention-grabbing quirks. It saves them from having to do anything actually interesting, useful or productive.
What are you talking about? The key issue even made it into the Slashdot summary: "the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe". This is the defining characteristic of bad 3D. Let's hope microlens array-based lightfield displays make it to the mass market sooner than later so we can leave this issue behind.
Yep. The main concern at the time was the possibility for development of strabismus if 3D (that does not recreate variable focal distance) was overused, especially in children.
That's absolutely false. Lightfield displays (for example, microlens array based ones) recreate proper focal depth variation throughout the image, as do volumetric displays. Examples of both have been around for years, and in the case of the latter, at least a decade.
Mail your representatives to build modern nuclear reactors. Nuclear has come a long way. Passively safe designs have been around for a while. With a combination of breeder reactors, waste transmutation, and glassification, waste is a non-issue. And let's not forget that nuclear has the lowest number of deaths per Terawatt-hour of energy produced--lower even than wind/solar/hydro**
Nice try with your misdirection from the actual issue there to a red herring one. The actual problems is that they're tampering with your data (and headers are data)--the sort of thing natural (non-corporate) persons have gone to jail for. It's not merely a case of them inserting an additional header; if your application sets the X-UIDH header, they actually remove it and substitute their own. Mods, please mod parent down for shameless shilling.
is that the review has within it significant amount of praise, and the criticism is mostly constructive. The pianist should have taken this as a learning opportunity more than anything else. The critic closes the review with what is basically an encouragement for the pianist to not limit his considerable aptitude at the keys to mere showmanship, and to strive for true greatness. I don't know the current stage of professional development of this pianist, but there are two main possibilities: either he's not improved since the review, or he has. If the former, he has no one to blame but himself, and more recent reviews would probably be in line with this one--so why single it out? If the latter, then this review should not be seen as a black mark on his career, but a historical point of reference and a symbol of his continued improvement--so again, why try to hide it? The trappings of the ego often end up working against its owner.
This is irrelevant. The paper is pretty clear in that they're only examining this particular dimension of the political space. I don't see anywhere that they're trying to sweep that under the carpet. Moreover, there is no problem with the fact that various political issues used in the questionnaire may have a larger component along other dimensions compared to the "left-right" one. There is no way that ignoring the other dimensions can introduce bias, because that process obviously doesn't affect the coordinates that the different stances on these issues have along the specific axis chosen by the study. In other words, your post is orthogonal to the discussion in the paper--it's off-topic and should be moderated accordingly. All it accomplishes is to demonstrate your willingness to showcase political sophistication (left-right? pfft, I'm above and beyond that, etc.).
The following quote from the paper suggests that, contrary to your claim, there is a natural basis for defining what is a moderate position:
Political attitudes and interest did not show a significant linear relationship [r(81)= 0.148, p= 0.182], but instead showed a U-shaped curve (FigureS1A), indicating that greater political interest is associated with polarized political attitudes.
The actual figure shows there is a fairly even distribution in terms of frequency throughout the range of political attitudes (you can see it by eye even if you don't create a histogram of the data), but the centrality of the lowest interest section along the attitudes axis needs to be explained. If you were to be correct, the range of attitudes on that axis covered by samples (removing outliers, if any), would be significantly shifted based on which country the sample group is taken from. Then either the location of the lowest interest section would not be central in the sample range for some countries (and, from experience spending time in a dozen different countries, I would bet my life against that--polarization is evident and ubiquitous), or the lowest interest section would be shifted along the attitudes axis, preserving its relative centrality for each country's data set. The latter requires a mechanism to generate it, and I'm extremely skeptical as to your ability to propose a convincing one that is based on primarily sociological considerations (biological ones are out of the question due to the relative biological uniformity across many countries with seemingly different political leanings according to your perception). I expect neither to be the case--that you are mistaken, and plots of sample groups from different nations will have far more overlap on the attitudes axis than you perceive. The range of fundamental political attitudes does not vary greatly from country to country and, as this paper implies, likely has a strong biological basis; rather, small differences are magnified by complex sociocultural mechanisms to create the biases of the overarching political landscape in each country.
No. The fact that within the disgust category it's only the mutilated carcass image that was highly correlated with political attitude discredits your "rural area" hypothesis (maggot image was not correlated with political attitude, for example).
I suggest you look at how functional reactive programming, which is the architecture used for this language, is implemented under the hood. FRP implementations are notoriously inefficient.
Why is it expected that those who don't have the motivation to vote without being prompted would be good contributors to the process? The very same people are likely to be less concerned with the outcome and to have spent no time deliberating over the platforms of the parties and candidates. There is no ethical justification for the sort of "get out the vote" program being discussed, only a strategic one--and that goes against the spirit of democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Hit a nerve, did he? And with an ID three times lower than yours, I'd say that the chance Sycraft-fu is a troll after all his time on Slashdot, rather than actually speaking his mind, is next to nil (even though I often disagree with many of his views, something the moderating rules rightly specify you can't use as a basis of moderation). As for you, I've been reading your posts for some time, and can say that you calling someone else a troll is the height of hypocrisy. The painful truth is that you want him downmoderated because you disagree with his views, and — given the impassioned language of your post — your disagreement is pretty personal. If you get butthurt so easily, perhaps you should go to another discussion forum.
Wouldn't adding random timing jitter to the packets deal with the problem without using up more network resources with junk data? As long as the timing noise distribution between routers is not grossly dissimilar, that should work.
Mod parent down for not knowing that in the OpenGL specification documents the "gl" prefix that you otherwise find in actual code is omitted. The call has been available in NVIDIA and AMD drivers since the second half of last year, and is documented in the spec: https://www.opengl.org/registr... see "MultiDrawElementsIndirectCountARB" (again, the "gl" part is always omitted in spec documents). You dun goofed now, AC, and embarrassed yourself. So no, the actual call is not glMultiDrawElementsIndirect and is nowhere as restricted, because it has the critical difference that the count to draw is now also stored in a GPU buffer and thus can be written by the GPU. Combined with the bindless graphics NVIDIA extension and bindless textures in OpenGL 4.4, you can even set up the whole scene graph on the GPU. Finally, as for my experience--(re)writing a graphics engine is exactly what my team is doing. By the way, maybe you should post your comment also at the official opengl forums so the rest of us can too have a good laugh.
One draw call, glMultiDrawElementsIndirectCountARB(), per shader program (you can even avoid that by using shader subroutines so you're then doing one draw call per render pass).
It's not the RCMP; it's the Ontario Provincial police. Your joke doesn't work nearly as well when this story is about a mere regional police force and has no implications as to state policy.
This was the Ontario police, not the RCMP, and Ontario is governed by the Liberals. So, Vic and the other federal Conservatives have nothing to do with this. I bet you're not about to correct yourself and redirect your hate speech to your beloved Liberals, because, after all, you feel no shame in holding a double standard, amirite?
Regarding your signature, I've got (old) news for you: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because Popperian epistemology won, and evidence's only utility is for falsification and cannot be used to argue for an increased probability a theory is correct. The issue was argued into the 90s by people like Elby, but the outcome was clear at least a decade earlier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
The name has changed, but not the substance. I saw more than I wish I had in the year I lived in San Francisco.
Why did the hipster burn his tongue? He sipped his tea before it was cool.
This paragraph alone is enough to make a +5 post:
Hipsterism is the practice of misdirection. Hipsters are lame people who have learned that attention is the scarcest human resource, so they can hide behind a few attention-grabbing quirks. It saves them from having to do anything actually interesting, useful or productive.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com...
There are plenty of substantial reasons to partake. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com...
http://www.debate.org/opinions...
What are you talking about? The key issue even made it into the Slashdot summary: "the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe". This is the defining characteristic of bad 3D. Let's hope microlens array-based lightfield displays make it to the mass market sooner than later so we can leave this issue behind.
Yep. The main concern at the time was the possibility for development of strabismus if 3D (that does not recreate variable focal distance) was overused, especially in children.
That's absolutely false. Lightfield displays (for example, microlens array based ones) recreate proper focal depth variation throughout the image, as do volumetric displays. Examples of both have been around for years, and in the case of the latter, at least a decade.
Mail your representatives to build modern nuclear reactors. Nuclear has come a long way. Passively safe designs have been around for a while. With a combination of breeder reactors, waste transmutation, and glassification, waste is a non-issue. And let's not forget that nuclear has the lowest number of deaths per Terawatt-hour of energy produced--lower even than wind/solar/hydro**
**Sources:
http://webcache.googleusercont...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Nice try with your misdirection from the actual issue there to a red herring one. The actual problems is that they're tampering with your data (and headers are data)--the sort of thing natural (non-corporate) persons have gone to jail for. It's not merely a case of them inserting an additional header; if your application sets the X-UIDH header, they actually remove it and substitute their own. Mods, please mod parent down for shameless shilling.
Kaczynski led an anti-technology campaign, not an anti-corporate one (source: his manifesto).
is that the review has within it significant amount of praise, and the criticism is mostly constructive. The pianist should have taken this as a learning opportunity more than anything else. The critic closes the review with what is basically an encouragement for the pianist to not limit his considerable aptitude at the keys to mere showmanship, and to strive for true greatness. I don't know the current stage of professional development of this pianist, but there are two main possibilities: either he's not improved since the review, or he has. If the former, he has no one to blame but himself, and more recent reviews would probably be in line with this one--so why single it out? If the latter, then this review should not be seen as a black mark on his career, but a historical point of reference and a symbol of his continued improvement--so again, why try to hide it? The trappings of the ego often end up working against its owner.
This is irrelevant. The paper is pretty clear in that they're only examining this particular dimension of the political space. I don't see anywhere that they're trying to sweep that under the carpet. Moreover, there is no problem with the fact that various political issues used in the questionnaire may have a larger component along other dimensions compared to the "left-right" one. There is no way that ignoring the other dimensions can introduce bias, because that process obviously doesn't affect the coordinates that the different stances on these issues have along the specific axis chosen by the study. In other words, your post is orthogonal to the discussion in the paper--it's off-topic and should be moderated accordingly. All it accomplishes is to demonstrate your willingness to showcase political sophistication (left-right? pfft, I'm above and beyond that, etc.).
The following quote from the paper suggests that, contrary to your claim, there is a natural basis for defining what is a moderate position:
Political attitudes and interest did not show a significant linear relationship [r(81)= 0.148, p= 0.182], but instead showed a U-shaped curve (FigureS1A), indicating that greater political interest is associated with polarized political attitudes.
The actual figure shows there is a fairly even distribution in terms of frequency throughout the range of political attitudes (you can see it by eye even if you don't create a histogram of the data), but the centrality of the lowest interest section along the attitudes axis needs to be explained. If you were to be correct, the range of attitudes on that axis covered by samples (removing outliers, if any), would be significantly shifted based on which country the sample group is taken from. Then either the location of the lowest interest section would not be central in the sample range for some countries (and, from experience spending time in a dozen different countries, I would bet my life against that--polarization is evident and ubiquitous), or the lowest interest section would be shifted along the attitudes axis, preserving its relative centrality for each country's data set. The latter requires a mechanism to generate it, and I'm extremely skeptical as to your ability to propose a convincing one that is based on primarily sociological considerations (biological ones are out of the question due to the relative biological uniformity across many countries with seemingly different political leanings according to your perception). I expect neither to be the case--that you are mistaken, and plots of sample groups from different nations will have far more overlap on the attitudes axis than you perceive. The range of fundamental political attitudes does not vary greatly from country to country and, as this paper implies, likely has a strong biological basis; rather, small differences are magnified by complex sociocultural mechanisms to create the biases of the overarching political landscape in each country.
No. The fact that within the disgust category it's only the mutilated carcass image that was highly correlated with political attitude discredits your "rural area" hypothesis (maggot image was not correlated with political attitude, for example).
I suggest you look at how functional reactive programming, which is the architecture used for this language, is implemented under the hood. FRP implementations are notoriously inefficient.
Why is it expected that those who don't have the motivation to vote without being prompted would be good contributors to the process? The very same people are likely to be less concerned with the outcome and to have spent no time deliberating over the platforms of the parties and candidates. There is no ethical justification for the sort of "get out the vote" program being discussed, only a strategic one--and that goes against the spirit of democracy.