This is assuming you want people to understand the flows and interconnections in such a diagram.
Have you considered the point of the speaker might instead have been "This is how things work. No kidding", o something along that line? In which case I think the slide is brilliant: it clearly emphasizes that the situation is a mess and makes it very easy for the audience to remember that fact, because if provides a very graphical and intuitive representation. I would think 99% of the people in the room see this and go "WTF?".
OTOH, if the speaker then went over the slide over the course of an hour, following arrows, then you might as well just shoot the audience in the face.
Additionally, no higher resolution is going to help you understand that pack of spaghetti. Is just poor visualization.
This is just a theoretical problem. Proper cooling takes can take care of this, and as of today is a non-issue on any cameras except on pixel peeping benchmarks.
I have to say the CDAF on my Panasonic G1 when using the kit lens feels as fast as the 70-200 f/4L AF on my 40D. This is definitely "fast AF" territory. This is not the case with the other lenses i've tried on the lineup, but it definitely goes to show that it is possible.
And the best thing about CDAF is that it actually gets the damn focus right where it needs to be. Unlike everything else out there. The fact that latest DSLRs have "AF fine tune" settings to deal with the mess that is PDAF attests to this.
Well, it depends on what definition you take. The Dragon book, which is pretty much the standard CS book on compilers, defines strongly typed as "a language where type errors cannot occur at runtime". With this definition, Python is certainly not strongly typed.
Of course, I agree with you completely, but my reply was to a post that questions the technical literacy of the author.
Other than that, the derogatory comment towards artsy types was just a reflex, you shouldn't read much into it. I have many photographer friends that fit into that category and admire them a lot, although I don't go asking them for advice on technical issues (that they probably don't even care about).
Please read the 2nd web page where he showcases the four different calibration devices he uses. You don't just "go to system prefs and calibrate". It's a complicated process.
Rob Galbraith is a very reputable source for nerd-friendly information on photography (unlike many other artsy types that can't tell a bit from a byte).
Doctors once recommended things we now know to be foolish therefore listening to writers who have done the bare minimum research is a good idea.
What? The point being made is "you shouldn't trust doctors just because they are doctors". As proof of that, the poster exhibits the fact that doctors have in the past indicated remedies that were later shown to be harmful. To think that this cannot happen again is naif at best.
See for yourself:
Certainly some contemporary common practices among physicians will be looked back with as much amazement. Not to say that current vaccination methods are or are not in that set, only that physicians can be very very wrong and you ought not to blindly trust them.
Not to mention that the GP committed no fallacy. Saying that doctors know more about vaccines than anyone else is not the fallacy of authority, it's a proper argument as doctors should know more about vaccines than anyone else.
That IS the fallacy of authority. He is implying that you should use vaccines as indicated by doctors because they are some sort of authority on the subject, instead or arguing whether vaccines are good or not.
It was the GP who made the fallacy of authority. He was the one that pointed out that because some people went to med school they know a lot about vaccines, and that you should do as they tell you instead of discussing fact. The parent actually pointed out that doctors can fuck up, no fallacy there. Today's doctors will be yesterday's doctors tomorrow.
Functional Programming is not a buzzword that is supposed to be better at paralellism. When coding in a stateless fashion (what FP is all about), function reduction can be split transparently across many computers. There are no locks, no funny semaphores and mutexes, no deadlocks, no nothing. It just works, because of its uncoupled nature of "no side effects, ever".
There is one kind of early optimization that is not premature: architectural optimization. If you design your whole system to be synchronous, you trade off scalability for simplicity. If you design your whole system around the imperative paradigm, there will be a significant amount of work involved in making things work in parallel environments. There is no amount of later optimization that will fix this kind of architecture issues.
Most proxies just forward HTTPS traffic because they can't do anything else (they can't read the contents of the messages!).
Technically you could verify the authenticity of the public key proposed by the host (or MitM) because IIRC at that point the communication isn't encrypted yet, but I don't know if there's personal proxying software that can do this.
The MSI Wind has the same distro, I actually tried to use it because I had heard good things about it. I tolerated the thing for 3 days. Honestly, if you think that GUI is not crap, you should try Ubuntu someday. Suse Enterprise Desktop looks and feels exactly like KDE 2 felt on RedHat 7.2. You know, all the crowded dialogs with zillions of options (including some particularly obscure ones that don't even get mentioned on college networking classes) that could have been parted with using simple autodetection?
Please. Ubuntu is at least 5 years ahead in usability. And don't get me started on package management.
One possible explanation for your understanding (which in my understanding, is wrong), is the Miller-Rabin primality test algorithm.
The primality problem (telling whether a number is prime), although hard, was never proved to be NP-complete. The Miller-Rabin primality test is a (actually, the 1st and possibly the only) polynomial deterministic algorithm that is based on the Riemann hypothesis (polinomial deterministic meaning "fast and accurate"). Proving RH would prove that Miller-Rabin is exact and therefore shown that primality testing is in P.
Unfortunately, algorithm freaks were faster than math freaks (well, the algorithm freaks involved were math freaks too) and a new algorithm called AKS was developed that did everything Miller-Rabin did without relying on the Riemann Hypothesis.
So, to this day, we know primality testing is polynomial. The _real_ problem in cryptography is prime *factoring* (if it's not prime, then find 2 numbers that when multiplied produce the original number). Although it is not know whether that problem is P or NP-complete or both, it is believed to be outside NP because it is much harder than plain primality testing.
No one said that people don't respond to advertising. The "subliminal" thing is the theory that ads affect you subconciously. It is clear that ads have a very real effect, what isn't clear is whether there is a subconcious part to it.
Keep in mind that subliminal or subconcious does not refer to other indirect influences of advertising. In particular, social aspects (such as wanting to "fit in" with the group of cool kids that are wearing Nike shoes) are in my opinion a big part of advertising, but are still not part of the subliminal phenomenon the parent was referring to.
Smith is the "winner" and there is no "loser" There is a loser. The loser is the competing pin factory. There are also stress related injuries for doing repetitive tasks that cause more medical costs, hence making the medical insurance provider a loser too. Pin making machines will break more often because of the extra workload. It takes a big leap of faith to say "no one loses" for even the most trivial action.
"Ad hominem" is a (...) I know what an ad hominem is. You fail to see the similarity between "go read newspapers" and "go read wikipedia". I was pointing that your reasoning fails to account with the overwhelming reality of the world you live in. You decided this implies you are uninformed, and accuse me of saying that in the 1st place. I never attacked you. In the same way I could claim that you are attacking me because you stated that I was wrong in any way. It's idiotic.
You stated that Smiths' theories were "just theories", saying that Smiths' theories were "horribly flawed" My words:
Smith's theory is precisely that: theory. As an economic model, it's horribly flawed I didn't say that it's not fact (duh), and I didn't say that the theory is flawed. I said the capitalist model is horribly flawed. See? Still, theory is NOT fact, in the same way a wheel is not a kangaroo. Nothing incorrect about that.
Division of labour (ie: specialisation yielding greater results than otherwise) is not just "just theory" or "horribly flawed". It's correct, and it works all the time. Greatly depending on your definition of "works". If you don't think children dying in Africa and Latin America are showing flaws in capitalism as a world order, then you have picked a very convenient definition. Of course there are some local advantages to be taken, but the only global profit of the system comes from harvesting natural resources.
Hardness isn't everything. You can break a diamond into pieces with a hammer, even if the diamond is harder than the steel. Hardness means basically that you can't scratch a sheet of diamond with a steel bolt.
You are extrapolating my original point far further than I did, complete with bungled analogies and a poor grasp of my original point. I don't think so. I second the OP's opinion that you can't be a winner if you don't have anyone to beat. Although his argument was more psychological than economical, it still think it holds as far as wealth is concerned. Global benefit is not possible on a closed system - mutual benefit is of course possible, for a convenient enough definition of the parties involved by the term "mutual". I happen to think that poverty in the 3rd world is an unavoidable factor of wealth in the 1st, no matter what theory says. I don't know what you imply with the Wikipedia link, I know what a theory is, and the paragraph you mention seems to support my point: it's not an accurate description of anything.
My point is that in every benefit there is a loss. That I used the "no losers" wording is just coincidence, it's not the same thing but I am still disputing your point that one doesn't have to lose for another one to win.
This is untrue. I think that's at best an open question (mostly depending on definitions of poverty and wealth, but still) and IMO it's very probably true. Most competitive advantages are granted through lack of appreciation of economic potential. A party that doesn't lack this factor takes advantage of another that does. Winners, losers, rich people, poor people. I don't see how a system that builds on greed and destruction of competitors can be a basis for any kind of equality. There's a very big human factor involved in the works of economics (which is one reason why capitalism triumphed over communism) that prevents this in a capitalist system.
Feel free to enlighten me on the subject.
for your straw man argument Easy man, it's not a straw man, we're just trying to understand each other. I don't experience any need to beat you in a discussion.
How else would I refute your ad hominem attack? That's not more of an ad hominem than your linking to Wikipedia is. It's just rhetorics to suggest (in a somewhat aggressive way, I'll certainly give you that) that you are not seeing something.
I guess since you put your "reputation" on the line you are necessarily right ? How is that an argument? You can come up with my real name in about 2 seconds if you really care about it.
The point is that no matter if it's possible or not to have a trade benefit both parties, there are many secondary costs involved which are generally where the trade-off happens. It's pretty clear that except in very few cases, 2 parties will sign an agreement if and only if they are both taking advantage of it. Still, you can always find a 3rd party loser that was generally not involved in the trade. The 2 parties are the ones who sign, but they are not the only ones involved. It's called secondary effects (or collateral damage!).
Example: CD maker and CD jewel case maker sign agreement to sell their products together. Case make sells more cases because of convenience, CD maker outsells other competitors because he offers a useful bundle. They both profit of the agreement, Adam Smith is all happy and dandy.
Still, there *are* losers: the other CD makers, the other plastic manufacturers that didn't make such a nice deal. Record companies will argue that because of this added convenience piracy has gone through the roof, lawsuits will be all over the place (CD+case bundle effectively violates anti-trust law and gives unfair advantage to the CD case maker, etc). Money will change hands in many, many places other than the stores where the CDs are sold.
The whole system works on inequality, and Smith's theory is precisely that: theory. As an economic model, it's horribly flawed. Not that I can think of anything better ATM, but that doesn't somehow inhibit me from seeing the deficiencies in the current system. How can you possibly have a system based on *competition* where there are no *losers*? Do you honestly think you can have one without the other?
Slashdot Mirror
This is assuming you want people to understand the flows and interconnections in such a diagram.
Have you considered the point of the speaker might instead have been "This is how things work. No kidding", o something along that line? In which case I think the slide is brilliant: it clearly emphasizes that the situation is a mess and makes it very easy for the audience to remember that fact, because if provides a very graphical and intuitive representation. I would think 99% of the people in the room see this and go "WTF?".
OTOH, if the speaker then went over the slide over the course of an hour, following arrows, then you might as well just shoot the audience in the face.
Additionally, no higher resolution is going to help you understand that pack of spaghetti. Is just poor visualization.
This is just a theoretical problem. Proper cooling takes can take care of this, and as of today is a non-issue on any cameras except on pixel peeping benchmarks.
I have to say the CDAF on my Panasonic G1 when using the kit lens feels as fast as the 70-200 f/4L AF on my 40D. This is definitely "fast AF" territory. This is not the case with the other lenses i've tried on the lineup, but it definitely goes to show that it is possible.
And the best thing about CDAF is that it actually gets the damn focus right where it needs to be. Unlike everything else out there. The fact that latest DSLRs have "AF fine tune" settings to deal with the mess that is PDAF attests to this.
Missing option:
- You buy the screwdriver at 80% off and sell it to your friend at full price making a healthy profit in the process.
Well, it depends on what definition you take. The Dragon book, which is pretty much the standard CS book on compilers, defines strongly typed as "a language where type errors cannot occur at runtime". With this definition, Python is certainly not strongly typed.
Of course, I agree with you completely, but my reply was to a post that questions the technical literacy of the author.
Other than that, the derogatory comment towards artsy types was just a reflex, you shouldn't read much into it. I have many photographer friends that fit into that category and admire them a lot, although I don't go asking them for advice on technical issues (that they probably don't even care about).
Please read the 2nd web page where he showcases the four different calibration devices he uses. You don't just "go to system prefs and calibrate". It's a complicated process.
Rob Galbraith is a very reputable source for nerd-friendly information on photography (unlike many other artsy types that can't tell a bit from a byte).
Don't know about OSX, but Linux most definitely can. It's how Knoppix and all the derivatives work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloop
The argument being made was:
Doctors once recommended things we now know to be foolish therefore listening to writers who have done the bare minimum research is a good idea.
What? The point being made is "you shouldn't trust doctors just because they are doctors". As proof of that, the poster exhibits the fact that doctors have in the past indicated remedies that were later shown to be harmful. To think that this cannot happen again is naif at best.
See for yourself:
Certainly some contemporary common practices among physicians will be looked back with as much amazement. Not to say that current vaccination methods are or are not in that set, only that physicians can be very very wrong and you ought not to blindly trust them.
Not to mention that the GP committed no fallacy. Saying that doctors know more about vaccines than anyone else is not the fallacy of authority, it's a proper argument as doctors should know more about vaccines than anyone else.
That IS the fallacy of authority. He is implying that you should use vaccines as indicated by doctors because they are some sort of authority on the subject, instead or arguing whether vaccines are good or not.
It was the GP who made the fallacy of authority. He was the one that pointed out that because some people went to med school they know a lot about vaccines, and that you should do as they tell you instead of discussing fact. The parent actually pointed out that doctors can fuck up, no fallacy there. Today's doctors will be yesterday's doctors tomorrow.
Functional Programming is not a buzzword that is supposed to be better at paralellism. When coding in a stateless fashion (what FP is all about), function reduction can be split transparently across many computers. There are no locks, no funny semaphores and mutexes, no deadlocks, no nothing. It just works, because of its uncoupled nature of "no side effects, ever".
There is one kind of early optimization that is not premature: architectural optimization. If you design your whole system to be synchronous, you trade off scalability for simplicity. If you design your whole system around the imperative paradigm, there will be a significant amount of work involved in making things work in parallel environments. There is no amount of later optimization that will fix this kind of architecture issues.
Functional design is an architectural decision.
Most proxies just forward HTTPS traffic because they can't do anything else (they can't read the contents of the messages!).
Technically you could verify the authenticity of the public key proposed by the host (or MitM) because IIRC at that point the communication isn't encrypted yet, but I don't know if there's personal proxying software that can do this.
The MSI Wind has the same distro, I actually tried to use it because I had heard good things about it. I tolerated the thing for 3 days. Honestly, if you think that GUI is not crap, you should try Ubuntu someday. Suse Enterprise Desktop looks and feels exactly like KDE 2 felt on RedHat 7.2. You know, all the crowded dialogs with zillions of options (including some particularly obscure ones that don't even get mentioned on college networking classes) that could have been parted with using simple autodetection?
Please. Ubuntu is at least 5 years ahead in usability. And don't get me started on package management.
Indeed, I meant NP-complete both times. Thanks for pointing it out.
One possible explanation for your understanding (which in my understanding, is wrong), is the Miller-Rabin primality test algorithm.
The primality problem (telling whether a number is prime), although hard, was never proved to be NP-complete.
The Miller-Rabin primality test is a (actually, the 1st and possibly the only) polynomial deterministic algorithm that is based on the Riemann hypothesis (polinomial deterministic meaning "fast and accurate"). Proving RH would prove that Miller-Rabin is exact and therefore shown that primality testing is in P.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Rabin_primality_test
Unfortunately, algorithm freaks were faster than math freaks (well, the algorithm freaks involved were math freaks too) and a new algorithm called AKS was developed that did everything Miller-Rabin did without relying on the Riemann Hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKS_primality_test
So, to this day, we know primality testing is polynomial. The _real_ problem in cryptography is prime *factoring* (if it's not prime, then find 2 numbers that when multiplied produce the original number). Although it is not know whether that problem is P or NP-complete or both, it is believed to be outside NP because it is much harder than plain primality testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization
I am honestly struggling to tell if you are kidding or not.
No one said that people don't respond to advertising. The "subliminal" thing is the theory that ads affect you subconciously. It is clear that ads have a very real effect, what isn't clear is whether there is a subconcious part to it.
Keep in mind that subliminal or subconcious does not refer to other indirect influences of advertising. In particular, social aspects (such as wanting to "fit in" with the group of cool kids that are wearing Nike shoes) are in my opinion a big part of advertising, but are still not part of the subliminal phenomenon the parent was referring to.
Still, theory is NOT fact, in the same way a wheel is not a kangaroo. Nothing incorrect about that. Division of labour (ie: specialisation yielding greater results than otherwise) is not just "just theory" or "horribly flawed". It's correct, and it works all the time. Greatly depending on your definition of "works". If you don't think children dying in Africa and Latin America are showing flaws in capitalism as a world order, then you have picked a very convenient definition. Of course there are some local advantages to be taken, but the only global profit of the system comes from harvesting natural resources.
Hardness isn't everything. You can break a diamond into pieces with a hammer, even if the diamond is harder than the steel. Hardness means basically that you can't scratch a sheet of diamond with a steel bolt.
My point is that in every benefit there is a loss. That I used the "no losers" wording is just coincidence, it's not the same thing but I am still disputing your point that one doesn't have to lose for another one to win. This is untrue. I think that's at best an open question (mostly depending on definitions of poverty and wealth, but still) and IMO it's very probably true. Most competitive advantages are granted through lack of appreciation of economic potential. A party that doesn't lack this factor takes advantage of another that does. Winners, losers, rich people, poor people. I don't see how a system that builds on greed and destruction of competitors can be a basis for any kind of equality. There's a very big human factor involved in the works of economics (which is one reason why capitalism triumphed over communism) that prevents this in a capitalist system.
Feel free to enlighten me on the subject. for your straw man argument Easy man, it's not a straw man, we're just trying to understand each other. I don't experience any need to beat you in a discussion. How else would I refute your ad hominem attack? That's not more of an ad hominem than your linking to Wikipedia is. It's just rhetorics to suggest (in a somewhat aggressive way, I'll certainly give you that) that you are not seeing something.
I guess since you put your "reputation" on the line you are necessarily right ? How is that an argument? You can come up with my real name in about 2 seconds if you really care about it.
The point is that no matter if it's possible or not to have a trade benefit both parties, there are many secondary costs involved which are generally where the trade-off happens. It's pretty clear that except in very few cases, 2 parties will sign an agreement if and only if they are both taking advantage of it. Still, you can always find a 3rd party loser that was generally not involved in the trade. The 2 parties are the ones who sign, but they are not the only ones involved. It's called secondary effects (or collateral damage!).
Example: CD maker and CD jewel case maker sign agreement to sell their products together. Case make sells more cases because of convenience, CD maker outsells other competitors because he offers a useful bundle. They both profit of the agreement, Adam Smith is all happy and dandy.
Still, there *are* losers: the other CD makers, the other plastic manufacturers that didn't make such a nice deal. Record companies will argue that because of this added convenience piracy has gone through the roof, lawsuits will be all over the place (CD+case bundle effectively violates anti-trust law and gives unfair advantage to the CD case maker, etc). Money will change hands in many, many places other than the stores where the CDs are sold.
The whole system works on inequality, and Smith's theory is precisely that: theory. As an economic model, it's horribly flawed. Not that I can think of anything better ATM, but that doesn't somehow inhibit me from seeing the deficiencies in the current system. How can you possibly have a system based on *competition* where there are no *losers*? Do you honestly think you can have one without the other?
While he reads Adam Smith you should go read some newspapers.
Not going to happen with a cargo ship. There is no keel equivalent in it, just a big fat hull.
Ok, but can you portray an equivalent situation involving a domain sale by a cybersquatter?
Sadly I don't think that works when the particular action involved happens to be "giving away value at a discount price".
If you disagree with that then I have a bridge on sale that you might be interested in, you dimwitted fuck.