##imagination runs wild# After finding and installing the plugin, AND after a heated discussion with the wife about having lost one's job over some inappropriate tweets, AND having a talk with the Department of homeland security about pressure cookers, AND after receiving an Amazon gift subscription paid on my own credit card, along with a note that iif it doesn't suit, I can return it and the next purchase will be forbitcoins that will be used for a purchase from the Rayon Way,
Why yes, yes, I can see how this would work to help me visualize security in a whole new way.
No, you don't need imbeciles. You need people with hurility, and not just the appearance of humility. You need people with compassion for others' weakness, without undermining justice.
In other words, you need someone who will "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with his God."
You're only going to get that from someone who has an overriding goal that ensures that. In other words, a serious person for whom that verse is of paramount importance: maybe a Jew or a Christian.
Maybe that is why, in corrupt Arab governments that managed to survive, they often employed Coptic Christians in the beaurocrtic posts.
That's why you need to install spyware from a reputable provider. I suggest that ISPs should get their spyware from Albert Gonzalez Productions. He's well known as being top of the line.
One of the things that I love about the book of Genesis and Adam and Eve, is that it describes a unique geologic situation: A single river, in the mountains, that splits into four rivers while still in the mountains.
To me, that means that there had to have been significant glacial melting. That, in turn, means that there had to be significant temperature moderation. Looking at the region of Turkey [the four rivers seem to go around the Republic of Georgia, and kush -- not Ethiopia, but Western Turkey where there also was a Cush and a city kushdar -- and the Tigris and Euphrates], we see that Ararat has glaciers. But the "significant moderation of temperatures" would have occurred when the Black Sea filled. That, then, date stamps the story to be around, say, 5600 BC.
So glaciers form, and glaciers melt, and while they are there, they protect the surface. When they melt, they gouge the surface. Moreover, they don't have to melt entirely.
So, then, this just means that erosion of glaciated mountains is sporadic, not continuous.
What you save is having to have lots of heat shielding on your vessel. In other words, you still do the large initial acceleration to get your delta-vee up early, and not have to lift all that fuel. I'd love to see an electromagnetic acceleration for a lot of that. But you don't have to have as much ablation coat on your vessel.
Further, your launch platform is reusable; therefore, you can have more weight there.
But that said, you do lose a lot of other tangibles and intangibles by doing it that way. As I said before, I suspect that there is no good solution, just solutions that work.
Just supposing... you were to accelerate your launch platform to as high a speed as possible, and then with lift and jets, redirect your velocity into a parabolic arc, of minimum horizontal velocity and maximum vertical velocity.
Then, when you reached just past the peak and minimum horizontal velocity, fire the electromagnetic rail launcher backwards. That launches the rocket with maximum delta-vee. It also increases the horizontal velocity of the launch platform aircraft, giving it enough lift that it can descend more gently to sustainable air density. Use onboard rocketry on the launch platform to bring it back to a sustainable flight, and continue.
The whole thing about this is, to try to reduce the amount of rocket fuel that you have to lift by rocket power, to cut the exponential fuel requirements. Anything that you can lift by aircraft is represented by a much lower exponential factor [closer to linear, not exponential at all]. Anything you lift by rocket involves a very high exponential fuel requirement. So anything you don't have to lift by rocket, shouldn't be lifted by rocket.
Yeah, I was too late to get it in early, but I wanted to do a "fixed that for you" on the original article:
This is in part because almost every bit of the rocket is {either destroyed or rendered unusable} ^H^H^H rocket fuel.
That's why the "recyclable" shuttle was never effective in reducing costs. In fact, making it recyclable added immensely to the weight that had to be carried, and increased costs dramatically.
So I don't object, in principle, to the idea of spending as much energy up front, but practicality is a different matter. How are they going to handle all the heat of hypersonic velocities?
My own preference would be to get a super-huge permanent flying wing platform in the thinnest atmosphere possible, then fly rockets up to that with winged aircraft, and launch the rockets from that. But I suspect there'd be too many problems with that, too. I suspect that there's no *good* answer, only answers that aren't very good, but do work.
Our company moved to Microsoft Cloud, and user rates plummeted. Everything became uselessly slow, the good spreadsheets can't even be opened by cloud services, the app forces you into the online Outlookwhich is better performed by the local ap, data limits are sometimes a bottleneck, and basically we ended up using it for end-of-the-week backup.
To get things done, we depend on email and thumbdirves.
Oh, and we fired our IT guy, and then started paying him as a contractor.
So we are experiencing the opposite of what the article says.
Could I settle this? Not to use your wording but I agree, I was being snotty. You could call it "but-that" if you want. But my point did have to do with staistics, insofar as you need to use the best available data.
Actually, the joke was more like an ad on a college bulletin board:
"Did you know that the NSA is not only interested in spying, but also funds research in almost every field of university study?... if you would like an application form for an NSA grant, call your mother and ask for one...."
Based on misreported deaths -- e.g., John Denver's death by aircraft misreported a week before the actual event -- there is a small (let's be generous, call it 0.1% ) chance that he did not die as of the time of publication by Reuters.
Because of that, his chance of dying after the Black Hat conference is nowhere close to 50%. His chance of dying before the event was less than, but approaches, 100%.
We adjust statistics to reflect known facts and known probabilities. The reports of his death are a known fact. Whether he in fact died is not a known fact.
[For you researchers out there: this is just like the rules for combining data sets: if the number of data points in each set is not known, you use one set of rules. If the number of points is known, you use a set of rules similar to combination of areas and moments of inertia with the Parallel Axis theorem. Use the correct combination equations for the situation, please]
Read Small Criminals, mentioned elsewhere in this story. It isn't mental illness, it is a criminal outlook. That said, it is possible to train people to care.
The methods -- and there are multiple -- are all about empathy training.
My experience? Between that, and allowing a heavy use of the (Catholic) confessional, and a focus on the Christian aspects, that child is much improved. The book was very helpful.
Yeah. I didn't know about the Koran,.. just the epic of gilgamesh. And the Bible. And the Burmese. And I forgot, but some would contend that it's encoded in the ancient Chinese language (boat is written something like box and eight people...I don't remember) But it's multple sources, not just ancient records. It's the river mud, and the chevrons, and the worldwide pyramid construction all at the same time.
And yes, there could be other explanations, but occam's razor seems to point to an asteroid strike.
One other thing... if the asteroid hit in the ocean, it would have thrown lots of water into orbit around the Earth. When Noah came out of the boat, he would have seen a semi-permanent 360-degree rainbow around the earth. In other words, not just any rainbow, but *wow... a lasting rainbow*.
No. I think 5 million years is Yorktown layer, IIRC. Maybe it's Jamestown layer. It's clay, anyhow, and yes, there was a sea covering a lot of the East at that time. Interesting, because down here in Suffolk, VA, over at Sleepy Hollow Park, there is a little beach near the horseshoe pits, and you can find 5-million-year-old scallop fossils. They're clay, not shell, and not stone.
Anyhow, back then I guess there were whales and such. And dinosaurs, too. The kind that go skwak and fly from tree to tree. Only that kind, I guess. Maybe some large komodo-things, even.
5000 years. And it records an asteroid strike, in case you didn't notice. And the evidence of the asteroid strike seems to match a crater SE of Madigascar, and chevron-shaped mountains on the shores of southern Madigascar, including ocean-bottom fossils welded to asteroid-proportion metals.
Oh, and it also seems to match 8' of river mud all dating to 5000 years BP, and also to a worldwide epidemic of pyramid building that shortly followed, and also to accounts of Burmese fisherman who described a great wave passing under them, and when they returned to shore, everything was gone.
Easy? Not at all. IIRC, to be able to theoretically get the model, no... let me try again: to even determine where your cameras are and how they are oriented, you need to be able to define something like 11 points in 7 photos.
At that, that just gets you to the point of having N equations, N unknowns. It doesn't give you the answer. Nor does it account for lens distortion. Throw in lens distortion, and you have that many more unknowns, therefore that many more points you'll need to define.
Having thought about it more, since then, I have decided that that isn't the way to do it. The proper way to do it is something more akin to relaxation... but you still need sufficient points. You also have to be able to define what the "same point" is. That's not easy.
That said, there are ways to make it easier. One is to first find which photos are closest to each other. To do that, you have to overlay the photos, and subtract the RGB values of each pixel. Then, run an FFT on the parts of the photos. The main frequency output of the FFT will tell you the probable shift-error in that part of the image. Try adjusting the photos that many pixels left/right/up/down (4 directions) until you find the best match, then rinse and repeat. Do this for all parts of the photo, and you will start to identify point alignments. Now work other photos together in a similar way, until you have a single network.
THEN you can use relaxation to try to find your camera positions.
THEN you can back-ray-trace, using I^4 correlation to get probable "glow spots", and then use that to generate your wireframe.
And somehow, you have to account for objects that moved, or people who were walking. Yes, it can be done by identifying different objects, but...
Good points, those. But the Epic and the Anabasis are both classics precisely in conjunction with their historical contexts. The first is tied to Zoroastrianism, but also records as an asteroid strike Noah's flood. Physical evidence helps confirm that.
The anabasis tells the amazing story of 10000 Greek mercenaries who fought their way out of Persia against --what was it, a million ? -- and then, not wanting to be split up after all they had gone through together, waited to be hired in a group. That did happen--they became the palace guard for Alexander the Great's father. Which explains a lot about his conquests, in turn.
That said, I find the King James to be better than Shakespeare. Take Hamlet's soliloquey, for example. I find Isaiah's soliloquey (Is. 1-6) to be far more communicative.
Knowing that the center of Hebrew life was at the city gates, I envision Isaiah walking towards the gates, and speaking in terms of what he sees: beggars, a burned out garden house, with the garden overgrown by wild cucumbers, cattle lined up for sacrificial sale, sales tables, a storm chasing everyone out of the rain (Is 4) a boyfriend playing the zither for his girlfriend--whom Isaiah embarrasses (Is 5:1-4). Judges, soldiers, bread. distribution, realtors and buyers.
And through this, then, he has a message: that as long as everyone is saying "that one over there is horrible"--which is true, nonetheless all that will come of it is disaster. But if any will see himself clearly as a leper before God, and cry out in distress over his nature, then that one will have repented, and will recieve mercy.
Stephen King had the potential, but probably blew it. Tolstoy probably succeeded. Tolkien, Lewis, McDonald, and Chesterton might be: might have one or two of those four.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a classic. Verne is a classic. Bertrand is a classic. Xenophone is a classic. Definitely Homer.
But the best classics? All Bible. For use of language in translating, the authors of the King James top Shakespeare. But the original authors outrank the translators I'd have to say Isaiah tops my list. Hezekiah (probable author of Ecclesiastes) is great. Luke, in his stunning simplicity, is great. Paul, in the depths of His emotion and undercurrent, is great. Irony, sarcasm,gentle humor, outright lambasting... literature doesn't get better than that.
Actually, that's a lousy average. If the standard is 1 good, money-making book per three-hundred, then you can expect to waste 250 hours sorting through trash to find a good moneymaker. Then, assuming that you don't miss it -- which I suspect happens at least 3 times in 4, putting you up at perhaps 1000 hours now -- you can capitalize on it, and make some money.
That 1000 hours has to be split with other duties, so you're talking about one new find every 3 or four years, per reviewer.
Throw each and every one in the waste bin, unopened, eand you're down to one new find every, what, 100 years? 1000 years? 10000 years? You haven't given a criteria of acceptance, and therefore it'll take however long it takes for you to learn that it was you, yourself, who was stupid.
A book publisher is more likely to publish something by someone who has already written a couple years' of articles for magazines.
A magazine publisher is more likely to publish magazine articles if the topic meets the criteria of interest of their special magazine.
There are over a million special interest catered to by magazines. Write for those.
A magazine publisher is more likely to publish something by a person with a higher degree (MS or PHD) in the field of study, or who is earning that higher degree.
They are also more likely to publish something by someone who has a venue in another media, like radio. Nowadays, possibly a blogger with a huge twitter following might also get published.
There's your algorithm. It works pretty well. It increases the hit rate.
The parent's post only increases the hit rate of egos. Which, admittedly, in this day and age is great for getting government funding, which in turn is more and more critical to the appearance of success, since the economy is going away.
Which is not itself treason, unless conspiracy to make themselves against the law constitutes waging war against the US.
But if we play fast and loose with definitions, then that makes us no better than SCOTUS justices.
Let's face it, the founding fathers did not see all eventualities, and did not provide for everything. Some would say that that is why we can amend the constitution, but I would say that there is a limit even to that... that sometimes, countries fail. That the last chapter of Ecclesiastes even applies to nations.
1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
2 While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
3 In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
4 And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.
10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Yes, each person has about 30 contacts. However, lots of those are duplicates. Most of my fb contacts were classmates in High School. And they are classmates of each other. Most of the others are family. There's a similar story for phone contacts, though that ties to work.
So Let's change that. I'm going to make up numbers, but just to get an idea of what's going on. First, we have maybe 400 million Americans, 100 million households.
Hop 1: 9000 x 30 = 270,000 people. However, let's guess that 3 of those 30 are duplicates... because this is jump zero. They're duplicates between randomly interconnected people. And it's 60, not 30, because of the phone.
So, Hop 1: 9000 x 60 = 540,000. 54000 are duplicates, and are automatically of high interest. Hop 2: [Probable targets]: 54000 x 60 = 3240000, but now the duplicate factor goes way up, to something like 90%. So it's actually 324000. However, of those 324000, 36000 are of high interest. So then that's about 90000 that are of high interest. Now, Hop 2 [Possible targets] : 540000 x 60 = 32 400 000, but the duplicate factor is even higher: 94%, because of things like school, work, church, and whatnot. So now, 1 296 000 households are investigated in hop 2.
Of the Hop 3, the quote referenced an occasional hop 3. Let's say that that is always taken... but I don't think so. I think that is more the case where someone like the Boston Bomber is now under extreme scrutiny. But still, let's keep looking. Hop 3: [Probable targets only]: 36000 x 60 = 2 160 000. Estimating, again, a 9% non-duplicate rate, we get 194 400 households that are of high interest. Add that to the 90,000, and I'd estimate an order of magnitude of 300 000 households that ever really get looked at by the NSA.
300 000 / 100 000 000 = 0.3%. That doesn't sound too far fetched.
Now, automatic "looking at" is another matter. That figure is probably close to half the country, order of magnitude. But the NSA's point, all along, is that automatic "looking at" isn't looking at. It's just a file in a drawer somewhere. Which is its own concern, more representative of Napoleonic dossiers than of a country of English Common Law under the rule of law. But as much as anything, that's just a sign that our system is under almost total failure, and is about ready to go kaplooie.
Slashdot Mirror
Aah. It requires unity plgin. Okay.
##imagination runs wild#
After finding and installing the plugin, AND after a heated discussion with the wife about having lost one's job over some inappropriate tweets, AND having a talk with the Department of homeland security about pressure cookers, AND after receiving an Amazon gift subscription paid on my own credit card, along with a note that iif it doesn't suit, I can return it and the next purchase will be forbitcoins that will be used for a purchase from the Rayon Way,
Why yes, yes, I can see how this would work to help me visualize security in a whole new way.
No, you don't need imbeciles. You need people with hurility, and not just the appearance of humility. You need people with compassion for others' weakness, without undermining justice.
In other words, you need someone who will "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with his God."
You're only going to get that from someone who has an overriding goal that ensures that. In other words, a serious person for whom that verse is of paramount importance: maybe a Jew or a Christian.
Maybe that is why, in corrupt Arab governments that managed to survive, they often employed Coptic Christians in the beaurocrtic posts.
That's why you need to install spyware from a reputable provider. I suggest that ISPs should get their spyware from Albert Gonzalez Productions. He's well known as being top of the line.
I'd mod, but I want to reply.
One of the things that I love about the book of Genesis and Adam and Eve, is that it describes a unique geologic situation: A single river, in the mountains, that splits into four rivers while still in the mountains.
To me, that means that there had to have been significant glacial melting. That, in turn, means that there had to be significant temperature moderation. Looking at the region of Turkey [the four rivers seem to go around the Republic of Georgia, and kush -- not Ethiopia, but Western Turkey where there also was a Cush and a city kushdar -- and the Tigris and Euphrates], we see that Ararat has glaciers. But the "significant moderation of temperatures" would have occurred when the Black Sea filled. That, then, date stamps the story to be around, say, 5600 BC.
So glaciers form, and glaciers melt, and while they are there, they protect the surface. When they melt, they gouge the surface. Moreover, they don't have to melt entirely.
So, then, this just means that erosion of glaciated mountains is sporadic, not continuous.
What you save is having to have lots of heat shielding on your vessel. In other words, you still do the large initial acceleration to get your delta-vee up early, and not have to lift all that fuel. I'd love to see an electromagnetic acceleration for a lot of that. But you don't have to have as much ablation coat on your vessel.
Further, your launch platform is reusable; therefore, you can have more weight there.
But that said, you do lose a lot of other tangibles and intangibles by doing it that way. As I said before, I suspect that there is no good solution, just solutions that work.
Just supposing... you were to accelerate your launch platform to as high a speed as possible, and then with lift and jets, redirect your velocity into a parabolic arc, of minimum horizontal velocity and maximum vertical velocity.
Then, when you reached just past the peak and minimum horizontal velocity, fire the electromagnetic rail launcher backwards. That launches the rocket with maximum delta-vee. It also increases the horizontal velocity of the launch platform aircraft, giving it enough lift that it can descend more gently to sustainable air density. Use onboard rocketry on the launch platform to bring it back to a sustainable flight, and continue.
The whole thing about this is, to try to reduce the amount of rocket fuel that you have to lift by rocket power, to cut the exponential fuel requirements. Anything that you can lift by aircraft is represented by a much lower exponential factor [closer to linear, not exponential at all]. Anything you lift by rocket involves a very high exponential fuel requirement. So anything you don't have to lift by rocket, shouldn't be lifted by rocket.
Yeah, I was too late to get it in early, but I wanted to do a "fixed that for you" on the original article:
This is in part because almost every bit of the rocket is {either destroyed or rendered unusable} ^H^H^H rocket fuel.
That's why the "recyclable" shuttle was never effective in reducing costs. In fact, making it recyclable added immensely to the weight that had to be carried, and increased costs dramatically.
So I don't object, in principle, to the idea of spending as much energy up front, but practicality is a different matter. How are they going to handle all the heat of hypersonic velocities?
My own preference would be to get a super-huge permanent flying wing platform in the thinnest atmosphere possible, then fly rockets up to that with winged aircraft, and launch the rockets from that. But I suspect there'd be too many problems with that, too. I suspect that there's no *good* answer, only answers that aren't very good, but do work.
Our company moved to Microsoft Cloud, and user rates plummeted. Everything became uselessly slow, the good spreadsheets can't even be opened by cloud services, the app forces you into the online Outlookwhich is better performed by the local ap, data limits are sometimes a bottleneck, and basically we ended up using it for end-of-the-week backup.
To get things done, we depend on email and thumbdirves.
Oh, and we fired our IT guy, and then started paying him as a contractor.
So we are experiencing the opposite of what the article says.
Could I settle this? Not to use your wording but I agree, I was being snotty. You could call it "but-that" if you want. But my point did have to do with staistics, insofar as you need to use the best available data.
Actually, the joke was more like an ad on a college bulletin board:
"Did you know that the NSA is not only interested in spying, but also funds research in almost every field of university study? ... if you would like an application form for an NSA grant, call your mother and ask for one...."
Based on misreported deaths -- e.g., John Denver's death by aircraft misreported a week before the actual event -- there is a small (let's be generous, call it 0.1% ) chance that he did not die as of the time of publication by Reuters.
Because of that, his chance of dying after the Black Hat conference is nowhere close to 50%. His chance of dying before the event was less than, but approaches, 100%.
We adjust statistics to reflect known facts and known probabilities. The reports of his death are a known fact. Whether he in fact died is not a known fact.
[For you researchers out there: this is just like the rules for combining data sets: if the number of data points in each set is not known, you use one set of rules. If the number of points is known, you use a set of rules similar to combination of areas and moments of inertia with the Parallel Axis theorem. Use the correct combination equations for the situation, please]
Read Small Criminals, mentioned elsewhere in this story. It isn't mental illness, it is a criminal outlook. That said, it is possible to train people to care.
I take your meaning to be psychopaths like the Jean Valjean?
(btw, in re another post of yours, go see my first post, with a link to amazon. It's an eye opener.)
Nonetheless, empathy training does work.
When one of my children got caught bullying -- and that is one psychopathic behavior that MANY practice -- I searched for the right response, and came up with a book called "Small criminals among us: how to recognize and change children's antisocial behavior, before they explode."
The methods -- and there are multiple -- are all about empathy training.
My experience? Between that, and allowing a heavy use of the (Catholic) confessional, and a focus on the Christian aspects, that child is much improved. The book was very helpful.
How many more than me am I?
Yeah. I didn't know about the Koran,.. just the epic of gilgamesh. And the Bible. And the Burmese. And I forgot, but some would contend that it's encoded in the ancient Chinese language (boat is written something like box and eight people...I don't remember) But it's multple sources, not just ancient records. It's the river mud, and the chevrons, and the worldwide pyramid construction all at the same time.
And yes, there could be other explanations, but occam's razor seems to point to an asteroid strike.
One other thing... if the asteroid hit in the ocean, it would have thrown lots of water into orbit around the Earth. When Noah came out of the boat, he would have seen a semi-permanent 360-degree rainbow around the earth. In other words, not just any rainbow, but *wow... a lasting rainbow*.
No. I think 5 million years is Yorktown layer, IIRC. Maybe it's Jamestown layer. It's clay, anyhow, and yes, there was a sea covering a lot of the East at that time. Interesting, because down here in Suffolk, VA, over at Sleepy Hollow Park, there is a little beach near the horseshoe pits, and you can find 5-million-year-old scallop fossils. They're clay, not shell, and not stone.
Anyhow, back then I guess there were whales and such. And dinosaurs, too. The kind that go skwak and fly from tree to tree. Only that kind, I guess. Maybe some large komodo-things, even.
5000 years. And it records an asteroid strike, in case you didn't notice. And the evidence of the asteroid strike seems to match a crater SE of Madigascar, and chevron-shaped mountains on the shores of southern Madigascar, including ocean-bottom fossils welded to asteroid-proportion metals.
Oh, and it also seems to match 8' of river mud all dating to 5000 years BP, and also to a worldwide epidemic of pyramid building that shortly followed, and also to accounts of Burmese fisherman who described a great wave passing under them, and when they returned to shore, everything was gone.
I suspect it really happened.
And how, exactly, did No know to build an ark?
That's fine, if it's already known. But if it is unknown, then you've got a more difficult piece to chew on.
Easy? Not at all. IIRC, to be able to theoretically get the model, no... let me try again: to even determine where your cameras are and how they are oriented, you need to be able to define something like 11 points in 7 photos.
At that, that just gets you to the point of having N equations, N unknowns. It doesn't give you the answer. Nor does it account for lens distortion. Throw in lens distortion, and you have that many more unknowns, therefore that many more points you'll need to define.
Having thought about it more, since then, I have decided that that isn't the way to do it. The proper way to do it is something more akin to relaxation... but you still need sufficient points. You also have to be able to define what the "same point" is. That's not easy.
That said, there are ways to make it easier. One is to first find which photos are closest to each other. To do that, you have to overlay the photos, and subtract the RGB values of each pixel. Then, run an FFT on the parts of the photos. The main frequency output of the FFT will tell you the probable shift-error in that part of the image. Try adjusting the photos that many pixels left/right/up/down (4 directions) until you find the best match, then rinse and repeat. Do this for all parts of the photo, and you will start to identify point alignments. Now work other photos together in a similar way, until you have a single network.
THEN you can use relaxation to try to find your camera positions.
THEN you can back-ray-trace, using I^4 correlation to get probable "glow spots", and then use that to generate your wireframe.
And somehow, you have to account for objects that moved, or people who were walking. Yes, it can be done by identifying different objects, but...
As I say, nothing easy about it.
Good points, those. But the Epic and the Anabasis are both classics precisely in conjunction with their historical contexts. The first is tied to Zoroastrianism, but also records as an asteroid strike Noah's flood. Physical evidence helps confirm that.
The anabasis tells the amazing story of 10000 Greek mercenaries who fought their way out of Persia against --what was it, a million ? -- and then, not wanting to be split up after all they had gone through together, waited to be hired in a group. That did happen--they became the palace guard for Alexander the Great's father. Which explains a lot about his conquests, in turn.
That said, I find the King James to be better than Shakespeare. Take Hamlet's soliloquey, for example. I find Isaiah's soliloquey (Is. 1-6) to be far more communicative.
Knowing that the center of Hebrew life was at the city gates, I envision Isaiah walking towards the gates, and speaking in terms of what he sees: beggars, a burned out garden house, with the garden overgrown by wild cucumbers, cattle lined up for sacrificial sale, sales tables, a storm chasing everyone out of the rain (Is 4) a boyfriend playing the zither for his girlfriend--whom Isaiah embarrasses (Is 5:1-4). Judges, soldiers, bread. distribution, realtors and buyers.
And through this, then, he has a message: that as long as everyone is saying "that one over there is horrible"--which is true, nonetheless all that will come of it is disaster. But if any will see himself clearly as a leper before God, and cry out in distress over his nature, then that one will have repented, and will recieve mercy.
Can't read any of them.
They've already failed the test of time.
Stephen King had the potential, but probably blew it. Tolstoy probably succeeded. Tolkien, Lewis, McDonald, and Chesterton might be: might have one or two of those four.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a classic. Verne is a classic. Bertrand is a classic. Xenophone is a classic. Definitely Homer.
But the best classics? All Bible. For use of language in translating, the authors of the King James top Shakespeare. But the original authors outrank the translators I'd have to say Isaiah tops my list. Hezekiah (probable author of Ecclesiastes) is great. Luke, in his stunning simplicity, is great. Paul, in the depths of His emotion and undercurrent, is great. Irony, sarcasm,gentle humor, outright lambasting... literature doesn't get better than that.
And greater is He who inspired them.
Not depressing at all. That Onion piece is excellent irony.
The obituary describes someone who showed true greatness in the life she lived, having missed what society wrongly discerns as greatness.
"I want to play the ukelele just like Granny."
Actually, that's a lousy average. If the standard is 1 good, money-making book per three-hundred, then you can expect to waste 250 hours sorting through trash to find a good moneymaker. Then, assuming that you don't miss it -- which I suspect happens at least 3 times in 4, putting you up at perhaps 1000 hours now -- you can capitalize on it, and make some money.
That 1000 hours has to be split with other duties, so you're talking about one new find every 3 or four years, per reviewer.
Throw each and every one in the waste bin, unopened, eand you're down to one new find every, what, 100 years? 1000 years? 10000 years? You haven't given a criteria of acceptance, and therefore it'll take however long it takes for you to learn that it was you, yourself, who was stupid.
Here's the criteria that publishers use, according to one respected, published, source:
A book publisher is more likely to publish something by someone who has already written a couple years' of articles for magazines.
A magazine publisher is more likely to publish magazine articles if the topic meets the criteria of interest of their special magazine.
There are over a million special interest catered to by magazines. Write for those.
A magazine publisher is more likely to publish something by a person with a higher degree (MS or PHD) in the field of study, or who is earning that higher degree.
They are also more likely to publish something by someone who has a venue in another media, like radio. Nowadays, possibly a blogger with a huge twitter following might also get published.
There's your algorithm. It works pretty well.
It increases the hit rate.
The parent's post only increases the hit rate of egos. Which, admittedly, in this day and age is great for getting government funding, which in turn is more and more critical to the appearance of success, since the economy is going away.
Which is not itself treason, unless conspiracy to make themselves against the law constitutes waging war against the US.
But if we play fast and loose with definitions, then that makes us no better than SCOTUS justices.
Let's face it, the founding fathers did not see all eventualities, and did not provide for everything. Some would say that that is why we can amend the constitution, but I would say that there is a limit even to that... that sometimes, countries fail. That the last chapter of Ecclesiastes even applies to nations.
1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
2 While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
3 In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
4 And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.
10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Yes, each person has about 30 contacts. However, lots of those are duplicates. Most of my fb contacts were classmates in High School. And they are classmates of each other. Most of the others are family. There's a similar story for phone contacts, though that ties to work.
So Let's change that. I'm going to make up numbers, but just to get an idea of what's going on. First, we have maybe 400 million Americans, 100 million households.
Hop 1: 9000 x 30 = 270,000 people. However, let's guess that 3 of those 30 are duplicates... because this is jump zero. They're duplicates between randomly interconnected people. And it's 60, not 30, because of the phone.
So, Hop 1: 9000 x 60 = 540,000. 54000 are duplicates, and are automatically of high interest.
Hop 2: [Probable targets]: 54000 x 60 = 3240000, but now the duplicate factor goes way up, to something like 90%. So it's actually 324000. However, of those 324000, 36000 are of high interest. So then that's about 90000 that are of high interest.
Now, Hop 2 [Possible targets] : 540000 x 60 = 32 400 000, but the duplicate factor is even higher: 94%, because of things like school, work, church, and whatnot. So now, 1 296 000 households are investigated in hop 2.
Of the Hop 3, the quote referenced an occasional hop 3. Let's say that that is always taken... but I don't think so. I think that is more the case where someone like the Boston Bomber is now under extreme scrutiny. But still, let's keep looking.
Hop 3: [Probable targets only]: 36000 x 60 = 2 160 000. Estimating, again, a 9% non-duplicate rate, we get 194 400 households that are of high interest. Add that to the 90,000, and I'd estimate an order of magnitude of 300 000 households that ever really get looked at by the NSA.
300 000 / 100 000 000 = 0.3%. That doesn't sound too far fetched.
Now, automatic "looking at" is another matter. That figure is probably close to half the country, order of magnitude. But the NSA's point, all along, is that automatic "looking at" isn't looking at. It's just a file in a drawer somewhere. Which is its own concern, more representative of Napoleonic dossiers than of a country of English Common Law under the rule of law. But as much as anything, that's just a sign that our system is under almost total failure, and is about ready to go kaplooie.