Certainly there's a pattern after sandpapering, but it's hardly traceable unless you already have the gun in your hand. The point of the law was to have the traceable pattern available in a database along with the purchaser's name and home address.
Greed? Maybe the guy actually cared about his work. Or cared about the company he built or the thousands he employed or the billions whose lives he improved.
Same for Gates. Maybe the world would have been Shangri La if Gates had worked in a soup kitchen and left software to RMS, but I doubt it.
All those evil blood sucking capitalists producing things that people want to buy. Damn them! We should shoot anyone in the head who gives someone else a job, or produces more value than he consumes.
Why do people think that because a doctor writes a prescription, that anything is in fact getting monitored?
I can smoke cigarettes, drink booze, and gorge myself on deep fried lard until I croak, but thank God the gummint is there to make taking simvastatin to improve my health 10 times as expensive as it needs to be to protect against a miniscule chance of myopathy which I know I have very little risk for, because I've had my dna sequenced and don't carry the risk alleles.
Ah, but of course the government is busy trying to prevent me from spitting in a tube and getting my dna sequenced, just as it currently prevents me from getting my own blood tests to monitor myself.
Already got a prescription for simvastatin. Doc ordered no baseline blood tests. But he charged the insurance company $200, courtesy of RentSeekingIsUs, also known as the Federal Government.
You should be able to walk into a lab and receive a test, any test, just as long as you pay for it. To deny patients this ability is to deliberately increase both risk and cost.
What should be and what is are very different things. I was getting a blood test in a lab, and realized I didn't know my blood type. So I walked up to the counter, plunked down my credit card, and said I wanted my blood type tested. Sorry, no can do, you need a prescription.
I think it's obscene to have to ask permission from duly deputized government agents to get a blood test. But that's the way it is. I've seen all sorts of comments, but none addressing the fundamental question - why do I have to ask permission from the government to get a blood test or take medicine? Why do I have to pay a 1000% markup on my medicine through regulatory rent seeking?
There's all sorts of squawk about "drug legalization", but always for drugs that get me high. How about they keep the pot, and legalize simvastatin and metformin?
And whaddya know, the FDA is actually talking about giving up some control and maybe leaving me free to make these choices for myself. A teeny tiny step in the right direction. I should look out the window to check for a flock of donkeys flying by.
If only the general principle would catch on. There are endless things that are bad for us that are legal - how about we legalize the things that might be good for us?
The voters are the Watcher of the Watchers. Or not. When voters demand freedom, when they demand that a constitution be followed, they might get it. Most don't actually believe in a constitution as a delegation of sovereign power by people to a government, including some Supreme Court Justices. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."
"It seems counter-intuitive but a RAND full lifecycle analysis (PDF) shows that reading news electronically produces fewer GHG emissions than reading news on paper:
How is this in any way counter-intuitive?
It's hard to understand to whom this would be counter intuitive. I could see people wondering a little about the total cost of infrastructure for delivery of a paper in either method - which could hardly be said to be intuitive in either case.
But clearly the electronic version is a winner for marginal cost hands down. Imagine the energy it takes to create the paper used in the newspaper.
Everyone thinks politicians are rotten but no one wants to vote for someone with no experience in politics.
Untrue. Not everyone wants a professional ruling class. Lots of people prefer to vote for someone with no *government* experience, and lots more want term limits. Just not enough, in both cases.
Yes, the US Army is the Great Satan. If only they handn't been around for WWII - the world would be such a better place, don't you think?
Besides the nitwit hatred of the US military, the more general problem is refusing to further *shared values* with people who have other values that conflict with yours. We can all join cults of 10 people and refuse to deal with anyone whose values contradict our own, not matter how much we both might benefit. That's sure to make the world a better place too.
So we're agreed that characterizing the 911 operator's *suggestion* as an *order* is a false characterization. Wonderful. We're making progress toward the truth.
As someone who has worked a bit in the field, I doubt the "experts" shooting off their mouths here "know" either. You *know* when you have data. I hope someone actually runs a test on this software in similar conditions to see what the performance is. If the software works, great. Feed in samples from both guys and see who matches *better*.
As someone who has actually worked with phrase independent speaker identification software, I can tell you it isn't bullshit, but I'd point to a number of limitations I already referred to in previous posts that make me skeptical of the conclusion made in this instance.
Nice to see someone actually talking about the content of the article, instead of arguing about their conflicting certainties over fact.
But I disagree with your conclusions. Yes, theoretically you can do speaker identification. It is a very hard problem, however. In this case, we're talking about someone screaming in the distance in the background of a telephone call. Unless he did a lot of training with screamed samples, we should be skeptical of his results in conditions off his training set.
In particular, since there are really only two possible speakers, I'd at least wait until the same analysis is performed on the young man and the resulting match rate compared before jumping to conclusions. The fact that he didn't do that makes me think this is a guy with a company looking for some publicity, and not someone diligently trying to find the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhere along the line, that True Freedom was purchased by someone who did strap on a gun.
A gun is primarily a tool for a credible threat of life threatening violence, not actual violence.
Certainly there's a pattern after sandpapering, but it's hardly traceable unless you already have the gun in your hand. The point of the law was to have the traceable pattern available in a database along with the purchaser's name and home address.
Greed? Maybe the guy actually cared about his work. Or cared about the company he built or the thousands he employed or the billions whose lives he improved.
Same for Gates. Maybe the world would have been Shangri La if Gates had worked in a soup kitchen and left software to RMS, but I doubt it.
All those evil blood sucking capitalists producing things that people want to buy. Damn them! We should shoot anyone in the head who gives someone else a job, or produces more value than he consumes.
Knowledge is power. They know. You don't. They like it that way.
and none of them were ever willing to give me raw data (admittedly I only asked a few, but still).
I'd say that's the key. You should be expected to publish all data and lab books online. No excuse not to do this.
That could be some very interesting data. Hail Caesar!
Works for me.
Why do people think that because a doctor writes a prescription, that anything is in fact getting monitored?
I can smoke cigarettes, drink booze, and gorge myself on deep fried lard until I croak, but thank God the gummint is there to make taking simvastatin to improve my health 10 times as expensive as it needs to be to protect against a miniscule chance of myopathy which I know I have very little risk for, because I've had my dna sequenced and don't carry the risk alleles.
Ah, but of course the government is busy trying to prevent me from spitting in a tube and getting my dna sequenced, just as it currently prevents me from getting my own blood tests to monitor myself.
Already got a prescription for simvastatin. Doc ordered no baseline blood tests. But he charged the insurance company $200, courtesy of RentSeekingIsUs, also known as the Federal Government.
You should be able to walk into a lab and receive a test, any test, just as long as you pay for it. To deny patients this ability is to deliberately increase both risk and cost.
What should be and what is are very different things. I was getting a blood test in a lab, and realized I didn't know my blood type. So I walked up to the counter, plunked down my credit card, and said I wanted my blood type tested. Sorry, no can do, you need a prescription.
I think it's obscene to have to ask permission from duly deputized government agents to get a blood test. But that's the way it is. I've seen all sorts of comments, but none addressing the fundamental question - why do I have to ask permission from the government to get a blood test or take medicine? Why do I have to pay a 1000% markup on my medicine through regulatory rent seeking?
There's all sorts of squawk about "drug legalization", but always for drugs that get me high. How about they keep the pot, and legalize simvastatin and metformin?
And whaddya know, the FDA is actually talking about giving up some control and maybe leaving me free to make these choices for myself. A teeny tiny step in the right direction. I should look out the window to check for a flock of donkeys flying by.
If only the general principle would catch on. There are endless things that are bad for us that are legal - how about we legalize the things that might be good for us?
Just like the forties.
The news doesn't seem to have filtered down to them that there are more convenient ways to consume movies these days.
The voters are the Watcher of the Watchers. Or not. When voters demand freedom, when they demand that a constitution be followed, they might get it. Most don't actually believe in a constitution as a delegation of sovereign power by people to a government, including some Supreme Court Justices. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."
Excuse me, that would be "American is the only language worth speaking", Frenchy.
How is this in any way counter-intuitive?
It's hard to understand to whom this would be counter intuitive. I could see people wondering a little about the total cost of infrastructure for delivery of a paper in either method - which could hardly be said to be intuitive in either case.
But clearly the electronic version is a winner for marginal cost hands down. Imagine the energy it takes to create the paper used in the newspaper.
> but a fixed fee each time copyright-protected videos are watched
Gee, there would be any way to game that system, now would there?
Everyone thinks politicians are rotten but no one wants to vote for someone with no experience in politics.
Untrue. Not everyone wants a professional ruling class. Lots of people prefer to vote for someone with no *government* experience, and lots more want term limits. Just not enough, in both cases.
As Super Chicken would say - "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."
> So we have no idea if FCAT is simply too lazy to provide good practice questions, or too stupid to be allowed to test our children.
"Both!"
See 90s pizza hut commercial. And get offa my lawn.
And want job security, respect, and lasting careers.
Yes, the US Army is the Great Satan. If only they handn't been around for WWII - the world would be such a better place, don't you think?
Besides the nitwit hatred of the US military, the more general problem is refusing to further *shared values* with people who have other values that conflict with yours. We can all join cults of 10 people and refuse to deal with anyone whose values contradict our own, not matter how much we both might benefit. That's sure to make the world a better place too.
So we're agreed that characterizing the 911 operator's *suggestion* as an *order* is a false characterization. Wonderful. We're making progress toward the truth.
This is the best response yet.
As someone who has worked a bit in the field, I doubt the "experts" shooting off their mouths here "know" either. You *know* when you have data. I hope someone actually runs a test on this software in similar conditions to see what the performance is. If the software works, great. Feed in samples from both guys and see who matches *better*.
As someone who has actually worked with phrase independent speaker identification software, I can tell you it isn't bullshit, but I'd point to a number of limitations I already referred to in previous posts that make me skeptical of the conclusion made in this instance.
Can 911 operators *give orders* to citizens? I really doubt that's true.
Nice to see someone actually talking about the content of the article, instead of arguing about their conflicting certainties over fact.
But I disagree with your conclusions. Yes, theoretically you can do speaker identification. It is a very hard problem, however. In this case, we're talking about someone screaming in the distance in the background of a telephone call. Unless he did a lot of training with screamed samples, we should be skeptical of his results in conditions off his training set.
In particular, since there are really only two possible speakers, I'd at least wait until the same analysis is performed on the young man and the resulting match rate compared before jumping to conclusions. The fact that he didn't do that makes me think this is a guy with a company looking for some publicity, and not someone diligently trying to find the truth.