You seem to believe that money should not cost more than its value. Currency has value in and of itself, but only if it has the trust of the community. This trust is historically undermined by policy, but the biggest extra-governmental threat is counterfeiting.
There will always be some cost threshold where it becomes unreasonable to continue issuing a given note or coin, but the loss incurred should be weighed against the cost of an untrusted currency.
This is the primary reason $1 bills have not been undergoing anti-counterfeiting redesign over the past decade. Like these coins, they cost more than their value too.
Conversely, the article discusses the opposite problem - where the value of the materials used is so high as to offer an incentive for non-government entities to dismantle the currency already in circulation. This undermines the currency in a very unusual way but due to the limited scope (only the lowest denominations being affected) I believe the effect would be much less dramatic than the effect of an untrusted currency. Basically, I think it is better to have currency cost more than its value instead of the other way around.
There are other issues that should also be addressed when reflecting on macro-economic aspects of currency, such as the consequences of removing a denomination versus using other materials, but that a note or coin simply costs more than its marked value is not as bad as you state.
As for the GP, I agree with you. Rounding up to the nearest dollar is only reasonable to those who constantly manage transactions in excess of $1000, which is to say very few people.
I wasn't aware that the Nazis experienced any particular problems with their system of tattooing people.
Members of the Waffen-SS had a tattoo that indicated their blood-type. This identifier helped war-crime prosecutors considerably, so being branded in such a way did prove very problematic to those soldiers after the war.
Don't ascribe to malice that which can adequately explained by incompetence. In other words, We have met the enemy and he is us.
That's a good rule, but it seems odd that there's such a public announcement. Nobody intentionally 'outs' themselves when it comes to spy programs.
In other words, I'd like to know if it really is unusable. It is in plain sight, so the best approach would be to claim that it's dead. I have no idea if that situation is true here, but the tactic is ancient.
Additionally, if active, it becomes too easy for other nations to use its existence to denounce the US for its obviously active surveillance. If completely unusable, that option becomes very limited.
BUT, any fact kept secret without reson to do so i an abomination!
Do you use encryption on your email? If you do, do you use it sparingly or all the time?
If you use it sparingly, then anyone that wants to investigate your secrets will be able to focus their attention to those few encrypted messages. If you use it all the time, then anyone that wants to investigate your secrets will need to wade through ALL of your messages.
The theory is that the real secrets become more secret.
However, to make use of this cluttering of secrets someone needs to choose what constitutes the clutter. Those who have this power available to them can utilize it for personal gain, and the concept becomes corrupted. At this point in history, I doubt that anyone intentionally applies the theory anymore and just does it out of abuse of privilege. But honestly, it's hard to tell if the concept wasn't corrupted from the start.
Either way, it's a perspective on the nature of state secrets that directly conflicts with yours. That of "Us vs Them", with 'Us' as the politicians or state organizations and 'Them' as everyone else - especially other politicians. The idea that "a government serves the people" is not considered with this attitude.
That's not the argument they're making. They're arguing that since you don't own the computer the message is stored on, you have no right to privacy. That makes no sense, however. I don't own the phone network once it leaves my house (more precisely, the NID), but I have a right to privacy as defined by quite a bit of legislation.
That right there is the key. There is quite a bit of legislation protecting phone conversations. There isn't similar legislation in the case of emails.
Please read this reference. Those definitions apply to "CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS". (sorry for the ALL CAPS, just copy/pasted the title).
Notice that both telephone AND email communications (specifically noted for this discussion is definition #17) are listed. Most of Chapter 119 have them used together, meaning that they do have "similar legislation".
In addition to that, the police do not need a warrant if they have permission from the owner.
Generally, an owner is defined as the only person that can (legally) willfully give away something. Here, this is specified in (3)(b)(ii): "with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication." Nobody else can do that: so the originator, addressee or recipient are the owners.
A custodian can usually be used to bypass directly involving the owner, usually for practical reasons. Using your car analogy, the owner is not necessarily in the car (could be a relative, rental company or employer) and the driver can still consent to a warrant-less search.
But, in this case, the ISP is treated as sort of a restricted custodian of the data: if they unintentionally obtain evidence of a crime, they can report it; if they are compelled to give up the data (such as a warrant); etc. But they can't just give it away.
I use this password ************ for everything.. Oops?
Slashcode is pretty advanced like that... it has filters that automatically hide your personal information in case you accidentally post it. Try posting your ATM PIN or social security code and see how advanced those filters are.
For this discussion: Nature is seen to either mean the environment as a whole, or the environment excluding man and/or man-made objects. Whatever your definition of Nature, the activity of all things within it are defined as 'natural'.
If Nature does not exclude man or man-made objects, then man's actions and the consequences are natural (the GP's comment). If Nature excludes man and man-made objects, then man's actions and the consequences are unnatural (a commonplace definition: usually expressed in the context of "Man vs Nature"). If Nature excludes only man-made objects, then the objects are unnatural but man does as man is expected (this can be defined as 'artificial'). If Nature excludes only man, then man's actions are unnatural while the physical consequences contribute to a new Nature (I'm unaware of anyone who seriously uses this definition).
In the GP's description, Nature excludes nothing. So, yes - the use of the word 'natural' is somewhat meaningless given that it is all-inclusive.
GeckoX and ErdosvillePhil are clinging to different definitions, while insulting each other. Personally, I've never found that to be a very effective persuasion technique, and it doesn't seem to be working for them either.
How boring our world has become. Old maps used to claim "Here be dragons", but today it is "Unallocated blocks". Where has the mystery gone?;)
Oh, I don't know about that. With dragons, there is no mystery - it's just dragons.
But with unallocated blocks... well, there's really no limit to what those might someday become! Perhaps they'll be your beloved dragons? Who knows?
And before you dismiss them, unallocated blocks can be spooky and scary. Personally, I might not fear them but I certainly respect them: uninitialized data has hurt me in the past (you rarely know what is lurking inside them).:)
I was 18 for my marathon of 104 hours. I wrote about it here as AC. I strongly advise against any drug assistance for this type of activity.
I suddenly got up and went out into the back yard to jump on the trampoline.
In my experience, I was acutely aware of my slowed physical state (reaction times were slower and very low motivation for activity). As such, I became very cautious with my movements, and would have never thought to do something like that (walking up stairs was my most strenuous activity during that period). Part of the reason was to conserve energy, but that was only a conscious decision at the start whereas later on it simply became routine.
It was -10 degree's Celsius or so and I was just wearing Jeans and a T-Shirt. I couldn't tell the difference.
I do remember losing some sense of touch. Nothing that extreme, though.
I was out with friends on the final night of my experiment and I started to see things and totally freaked out. One of the hallucinations was indeed a miniature pink elephant. As well I thought a tree was a very large spider.... I also heard that earlier on in my experiment [first 24 hours I suppose] I had exclaimed to my friends that my toothpaste had started talking to me the next day at school.
The hallucinations were very minor for me (I didn't expect or want them). YMMV, I guess. Sleeping through an entire day after that marathon was disorienting as well. In all, it was a weird week for me.
First, any Top 10 list will exclude many significant choices. In this case, the list is terribly flawed for including the two 2D individuals (Lisa Simpson and the other one).
Second, Marie Curie was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Third, she was awarded it twice. Only three other people were so honored, four if you count Warburg (all of them: male).
Fourth, she was the first female Nobel Prize laureate. To have been given such a distinction and be accepted by the academic community in those days, she had to be many levels above her male colleagues.
IMO, those four reasons are enough to explain: "Marie Curie but no Emmy Noether?"
Fascism as practiced by Nazi Germany and Italy (I don't know details of other variants) was strictly a means of power. The end goal of the Fascist state is to perpetuate the Fascist state - that's the only succinct description that can be applied to it. During its development, there is no generalized ideological structure. The form in Germany was a response to the threat posed by the Comintern (the whole point behind naming it national socialism), while the form in Italy being mostly a response to the general uncertainty post-WWI (with the idea that a single strong leader would eliminate uncertainty).
It was essentially a hack system. There was no guiding doctrine such as a Constitution, Bible, or hardened political theory - just do what needs doing to become (and to remain) dictator.
Given the lack of ideological structure, the practical structure simply co-opted existing ones. Corporations and the military were already rigidly organized and could be managed politically without much alteration. Other major organizations included labor unions, and the early Nazi movement did court them (for voter numbers) but could not embrace any single group since they were trying to be flexible (that hack system I mentioned).
Ultimately, these governments had an easier time working with corporations, so they went on the path of least resistance.
It is in a corporation's self interest to play along with any given government but Fascist states have no problem with nationalizing industries - a risky position for many corporations. OTOH, if powerful enough, corporations can influence governments. This is just to say that when corporations gain power, that (by itself) does not promote a Fascist state.
The main disadvantage to this counter-balancing is that with all of these entities gaining power to more effectively assert themselves, the power of the individual citizen becomes less and less significant.
Heh, your post reminds me of a great scene from a Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode.
Shopkeep: Take this needle, but beware it carries HIV. Homer Simpson: [worried] Ooooh, that's bad. Shopkeep: But this HIV can cure AIDS. Homer Simpson: [relieved] That's good. Shopkeep: The cure isn't guaranteed to work. Homer Simpson: [worried] That's bad. Shopkeep: But if it works, you'll be completely protected from that terrible disease. Homer Simpson: [relieved] That's good. Shopkeep: The LD-50 is one tenth of what I can reliably administer to you. Homer Simpson: [stares] Shopkeep: That's bad. Homer Simpson: Can I go now?
Who's going to fall on that sword? And, why would they set themselves up for defeat?
The suggestion involves committing at least one felony to expose potential fraud, which is neither ethical nor protected by 'whistle-blowing' laws. Actually, even people that qualify for whistle-blowing protection routinely suffer serious hardship anyway, so good luck finding any support after-the-fact here. Basically, exposing fraud so visibly is very risky business, even if done legally.
Also, the purpose of the suggestion is to teach others about a fragile/broken system. I can guarantee that the reaction will be completely different from what you'd expect. Do you expect the Avg(Joe) will think, "Thank that guy for showing us the light."? A lot of/.ers would understand, but this would be the first time that many non-/.ers will even think about voting authentication systems - and the activity they'd witness is overtly criminal.
For those directly affected: Do you think the politicians are going to appreciate these antics, or will they work hard at setting an example. For most of them, their day job is to vilify others and they practice a lot (especially in election-mode). Who would want to dig themselves into such a deep hole willingly?
Oh, and a lot of good your backup will do: who will trust that those aren't also tampered results?
All in all, it's really a no-win proposal for the perpetrator.
The most innocuous tampering would be to target a popular candidate running unopposed for a given office. But even that is crossing too many lines, since all the other votes will necessarily be affected.
BTW, nothing personal (honest). Sadly, I expect someone will try something like it (like the Anti-Santy worm) and the best I can do is to dissuade anyone that may have been inspired by your post (or similar ones) in this discussion.
The only damage will be to your teeth. It would be like chewing on a steel nail. With a half life of 25000 years, plutonium doesn't radiate, so the main danger is that it is a little poisonous, but to do anything, it needs to dissolve and being a solid metal, that doesn't happen easily, so if you swallow a plutonium pellet, it will pass through your body quite harmlessly.
The halflife depends on the isotope, which ranges from 80 million years (Pu244) to a couple minutes (Pu229).
Plutonium is typically an alpha emitter, radiation that is sufficiently blocked by human skin, so managing that radiation outside our bodies without extra protection is safe enough (read '**NOTE' below). The act of ingestion bypasses the skin protection and inhalation is worse since the material settles into the lungs and continuously irradiates the individual in the same place.
**NOTE: Our skin may protect us from alpha radiation but an alpha decay of Plutonium is Uranium which is VERY toxic, toxic in many ways. Plutonium itself may be relatively harmless, but the stuff it becomes is typically very harmful.
Maybe it has a truly fundamental meaning about PI?
Ramanujan was extraordinarily talented. This was just one contribution involving PI. As for this formula, it solves for 1/pi which wasn't surprising when I first saw it. A classic math problem is to find the radius of a circle with area equal to 1 ("1 = pi*r^2", then becomes "1/pi = r^2"), which was what I was reminded of that first time. Not that that really means anything, necessarily.
But that sqrt(8) in there bothers me a bit.
Then use 2*sqrt(2) instead.:) Actually, the formula is normally written with 2*sqrt(2) and 99^2 as 9801. The previously linked wiki article seems to explain the other constants (although I'm not claiming to personally understand it). Also, the first portion of the equation is normally written outside the summation since it is a constant, but I wanted to keep the equation as clear as possible (being confined to/. character-set limitations within posts). There are some other themes within the formula, such as the repeated occurances of 58 and 99. But again, I don't know enough to comment on this further.
All in all, this calculation would take more time than the division would. But it is a great "compression" of PI.
I did admit that it's more complicated, but you don't have to remember a new formula to achieve greater accuracy as you would using simple division. That's the beauty of it, just increment k. And, of course, computers can easily run formulas recursively.
The results, compared to pi (the spaces denote where the result becomes inaccurate): pi. = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 k=0: 3.141592 7300133056603139961890343 k=1: 3.141592653589793 8779989058263151 k=3: 3.14159265358979323846264 90657118
With each increment of k, the accuracy improves by about 8 or 9 digits.
To get to the same accurracy of as your example of 436 digits, the summation would need an upper bound of k = 50, I think. Even though this is a more complicated equation, it's a lot easier to remember than a simple division using 433 digits.
Lastly, to get better results you'd only need to increase k. I think an accuracy of 29190 would require an upper bound of around k = 3400, with no need to remember a new set of 29186 digits.
I disagree. Congress already has an effective manner to tax all forms of gambling, in that even though the IRS wouldn't be able to collect from the casino, individuals would still have to report their winnings to them on the 1040. The IRS will still collect, just not as much.
However, I see this as mostly about competition with brick&mortar 'destinations'.
Without a monopoly on gambling, where would Las Vegas be? Without Las Vegas, where would Nevada be?
I feel that this business model monopoly is the real reason. If you could gamble from home, you would be less motivated to visit such locations, and that would hurt other industries. The money made from the tax on actual gambling (from both casinos & patrons), while significant, is a fraction of what would be lost overall if these destinations were to lose their monopoly status. At a minimum, you'd need to also account for the sales tax lost on gas/travel, lodging & dining when doing the comparison.
And finally, include the number of voters that are employed by these industries. That number is the real currency in politics.
Anyway, there's more to this than just reduced gaming-tax revenue.
(Sorry if this post is oddly written - I blame it on the caffeine)
That general point was really the only one I was trying to make. I've recently experienced a situation like the "kick Joe" analogy, and your comment triggered the response. I don't know the details of this case, but I recognize that it could be similar. By the way, I post AC at times - sometimes accidentally:(
I agree that the situation is not really Catch-22 but, if he really wants this to be fully and quickly corrected, his options actually are quite limited.
True, a prominent member of any community can utilize their position to assist in answering any claims, but the New Yorker has a readership that falls mostly outside his community so any response within Yau's community will suffer from less exposure within that target readship. Without engaging the New Yorker (and if the claims are false), he'll have his name cleared among colleagues yet be villified among neighbors.
You're absolutely correct that he will need to gather community support, but even if he does get his community behind him, the New Yorker has no obligation to report on it. That is, unless their legal department strongly recommends the move.
Anyway, overall I think we're in agreement. My previous reply was mostly a chip-on-the-shoulder response. I saw what reminded me of a very recent exercise in frustration (that "kick Joe" thing) and was replying to that.
Golden Age might be a bit much, but we can't dismiss that we're currently experiencing something big. In the context of the article, I'd call it more of a renaissance.
Whenever some era in history is cited as a Golden Age, it's usually associated with (relatively) very high prosperity. Even if we expand the definition to very high achievement, I don't know what era I would label as a Golden Age, but might be inclined to believe the present day it. Such a label though... very subjective, each era has it's share of causalties, and it's probably too soon to decide.
A renaissance, on the other hand, is associated with many dramatic shifts in both the tools and techniques available. For practical reasons, only a few participants adopt the new stuff, perfecting it to a point where the major producers (and users) feel comfortable enough to adopt it themselves. With the variety of platforms, peripheral devices, distribution sytems, and gameplay available, I'd look at the past couple years (plus the next one or two) as a mini-rennaisance.
Having 25 different '2007' editions of various sports games with very little additions to them does not mean quality.
Quality or not, it keeps the industry in business. I'd argue that we should be encouraged that these big publishers are catering to the video game industry (with their Madden NFL sequels and the like), since those sales volumes justify the continued support for your adopted platform, or any platform at all. I'm partial to the Splinter Cell series so I guess I'm part of the quality 'problem' since each is really the same game using different maps. However, IMO, ChaosTheory is a whole lot better than the original due to those little additions.
The problem is now the cost of making mass market games is so prohibitively expensive that few companies are willing to take a risk and do something different.
Especially for PC games, it's become easier than ever to buy non-mass-marketed games - if we don't limit ourselves to the mall game store. And anyway, the big producers aren't going to be assuming the risk - there should be smaller outfits willing to test the market for them.
* Note: some of the examples I use below are not currently available, even as beta. I know this already, but these examples will be available soon and if they aren't exactly as advertised, they'll be pretty damned close. I'm focusing this post to the range of today +/- 2 years. *
Let's look at the FPS genre, which everyone loves to point at as the ultimate example of genre stagnation. This view discounts the contributions of games like.kkrieger, which break from the standard approaches to graphics - while not techinically new, it's re-inventing it for modern quality (from a programmer's POV, it's cool to observe). The stagnation claim also completely ignores gameplay found in games like Nuclear Dawn, which mix FPS and RTS - a really cool approach, IMO.
Outside of FPS, we've got the bizarre, and the very bizarre. We should add cute to the novelty list too.
The above are only a few examples. We've been seeing a number of unique approaches to video games in the past couple years, and these examples have the ability to inspire developers in previously unthought of directions. How many people would have seriously thought of using a controller like a sword for actual gameplay before the Wii remote? The more people thinking about these thin
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to believe that money should not cost more than its value. Currency has value in and of itself, but only if it has the trust of the community. This trust is historically undermined by policy, but the biggest extra-governmental threat is counterfeiting.
Even though there are examples of counterfeiting operations run specifically to undermine a given currency, it is a usually run as a business. As such, a very effective tool against counterfeiting is when the money costs more than its face value.
There will always be some cost threshold where it becomes unreasonable to continue issuing a given note or coin, but the loss incurred should be weighed against the cost of an untrusted currency.
This is the primary reason $1 bills have not been undergoing anti-counterfeiting redesign over the past decade. Like these coins, they cost more than their value too.
Conversely, the article discusses the opposite problem - where the value of the materials used is so high as to offer an incentive for non-government entities to dismantle the currency already in circulation. This undermines the currency in a very unusual way but due to the limited scope (only the lowest denominations being affected) I believe the effect would be much less dramatic than the effect of an untrusted currency. Basically, I think it is better to have currency cost more than its value instead of the other way around.
There are other issues that should also be addressed when reflecting on macro-economic aspects of currency, such as the consequences of removing a denomination versus using other materials, but that a note or coin simply costs more than its marked value is not as bad as you state.
As for the GP, I agree with you. Rounding up to the nearest dollar is only reasonable to those who constantly manage transactions in excess of $1000, which is to say very few people.
And YOU'RE that guy ahead of me in line... at Commerce Bank. :)
Or did you mean 'deposed'?
In other words, I'd like to know if it really is unusable. It is in plain sight, so the best approach would be to claim that it's dead. I have no idea if that situation is true here, but the tactic is ancient.
Additionally, if active, it becomes too easy for other nations to use its existence to denounce the US for its obviously active surveillance. If completely unusable, that option becomes very limited.
If you use it sparingly, then anyone that wants to investigate your secrets will be able to focus their attention to those few encrypted messages.
If you use it all the time, then anyone that wants to investigate your secrets will need to wade through ALL of your messages.
The theory is that the real secrets become more secret.
However, to make use of this cluttering of secrets someone needs to choose what constitutes the clutter. Those who have this power available to them can utilize it for personal gain, and the concept becomes corrupted. At this point in history, I doubt that anyone intentionally applies the theory anymore and just does it out of abuse of privilege. But honestly, it's hard to tell if the concept wasn't corrupted from the start.
Either way, it's a perspective on the nature of state secrets that directly conflicts with yours. That of "Us vs Them", with 'Us' as the politicians or state organizations and 'Them' as everyone else - especially other politicians. The idea that "a government serves the people" is not considered with this attitude.
Notice that both telephone AND email communications (specifically noted for this discussion is definition #17) are listed. Most of Chapter 119 have them used together, meaning that they do have "similar legislation".
Generally, an owner is defined as the only person that can (legally) willfully give away something. Here, this is specified in (3)(b)(ii): "with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication." Nobody else can do that: so the originator, addressee or recipient are the owners.
A custodian can usually be used to bypass directly involving the owner, usually for practical reasons. Using your car analogy, the owner is not necessarily in the car (could be a relative, rental company or employer) and the driver can still consent to a warrant-less search.
But, in this case, the ISP is treated as sort of a restricted custodian of the data: if they unintentionally obtain evidence of a crime, they can report it; if they are compelled to give up the data (such as a warrant); etc. But they can't just give it away.
And finally, IANAL.
"you can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2"
*Cough*
For this discussion: Nature is seen to either mean the environment as a whole, or the environment excluding man and/or man-made objects.
Whatever your definition of Nature, the activity of all things within it are defined as 'natural'.
If Nature does not exclude man or man-made objects, then man's actions and the consequences are natural (the GP's comment).
If Nature excludes man and man-made objects, then man's actions and the consequences are unnatural (a commonplace definition: usually expressed in the context of "Man vs Nature").
If Nature excludes only man-made objects, then the objects are unnatural but man does as man is expected (this can be defined as 'artificial').
If Nature excludes only man, then man's actions are unnatural while the physical consequences contribute to a new Nature (I'm unaware of anyone who seriously uses this definition).
In the GP's description, Nature excludes nothing. So, yes - the use of the word 'natural' is somewhat meaningless given that it is all-inclusive.
GeckoX and ErdosvillePhil are clinging to different definitions, while insulting each other. Personally, I've never found that to be a very effective persuasion technique, and it doesn't seem to be working for them either.
But with unallocated blocks
And before you dismiss them, unallocated blocks can be spooky and scary. Personally, I might not fear them but I certainly respect them: uninitialized data has hurt me in the past (you rarely know what is lurking inside them).
In my experience, I was acutely aware of my slowed physical state (reaction times were slower and very low motivation for activity). As such, I became very cautious with my movements, and would have never thought to do something like that (walking up stairs was my most strenuous activity during that period). Part of the reason was to conserve energy, but that was only a conscious decision at the start whereas later on it simply became routine.
I do remember losing some sense of touch. Nothing that extreme, though.
The hallucinations were very minor for me (I didn't expect or want them). YMMV, I guess. Sleeping through an entire day after that marathon was disorienting as well. In all, it was a weird week for me.
First, any Top 10 list will exclude many significant choices. In this case, the list is terribly flawed for including the two 2D individuals (Lisa Simpson and the other one).
Second, Marie Curie was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Third, she was awarded it twice. Only three other people were so honored, four if you count Warburg (all of them: male).
Fourth, she was the first female Nobel Prize laureate. To have been given such a distinction and be accepted by the academic community in those days, she had to be many levels above her male colleagues.
IMO, those four reasons are enough to explain: "Marie Curie but no Emmy Noether?"
You, and may others, misunderstand Fascism.
Fascism as practiced by Nazi Germany and Italy (I don't know details of other variants) was strictly a means of power. The end goal of the Fascist state is to perpetuate the Fascist state - that's the only succinct description that can be applied to it. During its development, there is no generalized ideological structure. The form in Germany was a response to the threat posed by the Comintern (the whole point behind naming it national socialism), while the form in Italy being mostly a response to the general uncertainty post-WWI (with the idea that a single strong leader would eliminate uncertainty).
It was essentially a hack system. There was no guiding doctrine such as a Constitution, Bible, or hardened political theory - just do what needs doing to become (and to remain) dictator.
Given the lack of ideological structure, the practical structure simply co-opted existing ones. Corporations and the military were already rigidly organized and could be managed politically without much alteration. Other major organizations included labor unions, and the early Nazi movement did court them (for voter numbers) but could not embrace any single group since they were trying to be flexible (that hack system I mentioned).
Ultimately, these governments had an easier time working with corporations, so they went on the path of least resistance.
It is in a corporation's self interest to play along with any given government but Fascist states have no problem with nationalizing industries - a risky position for many corporations. OTOH, if powerful enough, corporations can influence governments. This is just to say that when corporations gain power, that (by itself) does not promote a Fascist state.
The main disadvantage to this counter-balancing is that with all of these entities gaining power to more effectively assert themselves, the power of the individual citizen becomes less and less significant.
Why is one editor (Jamie) getting another editor (Zonk) to submit their summary, indirectly?
It seems like an odd approach.
My best guess is that it has to do with the static opening phrase, "[User] writes".
Heh, your post reminds me of a great scene from a Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode.
Shopkeep: Take this needle, but beware it carries HIV.
Homer Simpson: [worried] Ooooh, that's bad.
Shopkeep: But this HIV can cure AIDS.
Homer Simpson: [relieved] That's good.
Shopkeep: The cure isn't guaranteed to work.
Homer Simpson: [worried] That's bad.
Shopkeep: But if it works, you'll be completely protected from that terrible disease.
Homer Simpson: [relieved] That's good.
Shopkeep: The LD-50 is one tenth of what I can reliably administer to you.
Homer Simpson: [stares]
Shopkeep: That's bad.
Homer Simpson: Can I go now?
Who's going to fall on that sword? And, why would they set themselves up for defeat?
/.ers would understand, but this would be the first time that many non-/.ers will even think about voting authentication systems - and the activity they'd witness is overtly criminal.
The suggestion involves committing at least one felony to expose potential fraud, which is neither ethical nor protected by 'whistle-blowing' laws. Actually, even people that qualify for whistle-blowing protection routinely suffer serious hardship anyway, so good luck finding any support after-the-fact here. Basically, exposing fraud so visibly is very risky business, even if done legally.
Also, the purpose of the suggestion is to teach others about a fragile/broken system. I can guarantee that the reaction will be completely different from what you'd expect. Do you expect the Avg(Joe) will think, "Thank that guy for showing us the light."? A lot of
For those directly affected: Do you think the politicians are going to appreciate these antics, or will they work hard at setting an example. For most of them, their day job is to vilify others and they practice a lot (especially in election-mode). Who would want to dig themselves into such a deep hole willingly?
Oh, and a lot of good your backup will do: who will trust that those aren't also tampered results?
All in all, it's really a no-win proposal for the perpetrator.
The most innocuous tampering would be to target a popular candidate running unopposed for a given office. But even that is crossing too many lines, since all the other votes will necessarily be affected.
BTW, nothing personal (honest). Sadly, I expect someone will try something like it (like the Anti-Santy worm) and the best I can do is to dissuade anyone that may have been inspired by your post (or similar ones) in this discussion.
There seems to be quite a market actually, given that the quote is currently ranked #2.
Plutonium is typically an alpha emitter, radiation that is sufficiently blocked by human skin, so managing that radiation outside our bodies without extra protection is safe enough (read '**NOTE' below). The act of ingestion bypasses the skin protection and inhalation is worse since the material settles into the lungs and continuously irradiates the individual in the same place.
**NOTE: Our skin may protect us from alpha radiation but an alpha decay of Plutonium is Uranium which is VERY toxic, toxic in many ways. Plutonium itself may be relatively harmless, but the stuff it becomes is typically very harmful.
Ramanujan was extraordinarily talented. This was just one contribution involving PI.
As for this formula, it solves for 1/pi which wasn't surprising when I first saw it. A classic math problem is to find the radius of a circle with area equal to 1 ("1 = pi*r^2", then becomes "1/pi = r^2"), which was what I was reminded of that first time. Not that that really means anything, necessarily.
Then use 2*sqrt(2) instead.
Actually, the formula is normally written with 2*sqrt(2) and 99^2 as 9801. The previously linked wiki article seems to explain the other constants (although I'm not claiming to personally understand it). Also, the first portion of the equation is normally written outside the summation since it is a constant, but I wanted to keep the equation as clear as possible (being confined to
There are some other themes within the formula, such as the repeated occurances of 58 and 99. But again, I don't know enough to comment on this further.
I did admit that it's more complicated, but you don't have to remember a new formula to achieve greater accuracy as you would using simple division. That's the beauty of it, just increment k. And, of course, computers can easily run formulas recursively.
I know you're answering to an integer division comment.
However, if we're going to be promoting non-trivial equations, a better one would be the infinite series by Ramanujan from about a century ago.
1/pi = summation { [ sqrt(8) / 99^2 ] * [ (4k)! * (1103 + 26390*k) ] / [ (k!)^4 * 396^(4k) ] }
from k = 0 -> infinite
The results, compared to pi (the spaces denote where the result becomes inaccurate):
pi. = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
k=0: 3.141592 7300133056603139961890343
k=1: 3.141592653589793 8779989058263151
k=3: 3.14159265358979323846264 90657118
With each increment of k, the accuracy improves by about 8 or 9 digits.
To get to the same accurracy of as your example of 436 digits, the summation would need an upper bound of k = 50, I think. Even though this is a more complicated equation, it's a lot easier to remember than a simple division using 433 digits.
Lastly, to get better results you'd only need to increase k. I think an accuracy of 29190 would require an upper bound of around k = 3400, with no need to remember a new set of 29186 digits.
I disagree. Congress already has an effective manner to tax all forms of gambling, in that even though the IRS wouldn't be able to collect from the casino, individuals would still have to report their winnings to them on the 1040. The IRS will still collect, just not as much.
However, I see this as mostly about competition with brick&mortar 'destinations'.
Without a monopoly on gambling, where would Las Vegas be? Without Las Vegas, where would Nevada be?
I feel that this business model monopoly is the real reason. If you could gamble from home, you would be less motivated to visit such locations, and that would hurt other industries. The money made from the tax on actual gambling (from both casinos & patrons), while significant, is a fraction of what would be lost overall if these destinations were to lose their monopoly status. At a minimum, you'd need to also account for the sales tax lost on gas/travel, lodging & dining when doing the comparison.
And finally, include the number of voters that are employed by these industries. That number is the real currency in politics.
Anyway, there's more to this than just reduced gaming-tax revenue.
(Sorry if this post is oddly written - I blame it on the caffeine)
That general point was really the only one I was trying to make. I've recently experienced a situation like the "kick Joe" analogy, and your comment triggered the response. I don't know the details of this case, but I recognize that it could be similar. By the way, I post AC at times - sometimes accidentally :(
I agree that the situation is not really Catch-22 but, if he really wants this to be fully and quickly corrected, his options actually are quite limited.
True, a prominent member of any community can utilize their position to assist in answering any claims, but the New Yorker has a readership that falls mostly outside his community so any response within Yau's community will suffer from less exposure within that target readship. Without engaging the New Yorker (and if the claims are false), he'll have his name cleared among colleagues yet be villified among neighbors.
You're absolutely correct that he will need to gather community support, but even if he does get his community behind him, the New Yorker has no obligation to report on it. That is, unless their legal department strongly recommends the move.
Anyway, overall I think we're in agreement. My previous reply was mostly a chip-on-the-shoulder response. I saw what reminded me of a very recent exercise in frustration (that "kick Joe" thing) and was replying to that.
Whenever some era in history is cited as a Golden Age, it's usually associated with (relatively) very high prosperity. Even if we expand the definition to very high achievement, I don't know what era I would label as a Golden Age, but might be inclined to believe the present day it. Such a label though... very subjective, each era has it's share of causalties, and it's probably too soon to decide.
A renaissance, on the other hand, is associated with many dramatic shifts in both the tools and techniques available. For practical reasons, only a few participants adopt the new stuff, perfecting it to a point where the major producers (and users) feel comfortable enough to adopt it themselves. With the variety of platforms, peripheral devices, distribution sytems, and gameplay available, I'd look at the past couple years (plus the next one or two) as a mini-rennaisance.
Quality or not, it keeps the industry in business. I'd argue that we should be encouraged that these big publishers are catering to the video game industry (with their Madden NFL sequels and the like), since those sales volumes justify the continued support for your adopted platform, or any platform at all. I'm partial to the Splinter Cell series so I guess I'm part of the quality 'problem' since each is really the same game using different maps. However, IMO, ChaosTheory is a whole lot better than the original due to those little additions.
Especially for PC games, it's become easier than ever to buy non-mass-marketed games - if we don't limit ourselves to the mall game store. And anyway, the big producers aren't going to be assuming the risk - there should be smaller outfits willing to test the market for them.
.kkrieger, which break from the standard approaches to graphics - while not techinically new, it's re-inventing it for modern quality (from a programmer's POV, it's cool to observe). The stagnation claim also completely ignores gameplay found in games like Nuclear Dawn, which mix FPS and RTS - a really cool approach, IMO.
* Note: some of the examples I use below are not currently available, even as beta. I know this already, but these examples will be available soon and if they aren't exactly as advertised, they'll be pretty damned close. I'm focusing this post to the range of today +/- 2 years. *
Let's look at the FPS genre, which everyone loves to point at as the ultimate example of genre stagnation. This view discounts the contributions of games like
Outside of FPS, we've got the bizarre, and the very bizarre. We should add cute to the novelty list too.
Tired of the ancient two-handed gamepad controller? Try out the Wii remote.
The above are only a few examples. We've been seeing a number of unique approaches to video games in the past couple years, and these examples have the ability to inspire developers in previously unthought of directions. How many people would have seriously thought of using a controller like a sword for actual gameplay before the Wii remote? The more people thinking about these thin
Your approach is interesting, but it can backfire.