the reason rpn gives the shortest way to write expressions is that there is a natural 1-1 mapping between a stack and a tree. and since people try to organize most knowledge into trees (until they run into insolvable groups), the most compact way of representing trees will win as a method of representing most operations.
The only unfair thing about Mannings' treatment is that he isn't getting a death penalty. He leaked classified information while wearing a uniform (ie, while under oath to lay down his life to protect that information). That's bona fide treason. The fact that he hasn't been charged with anything which could lead to a death penalty is a spit in the face of every man and woman in uniform.
Everything released by Manning was classified. I don't believe the gp blames Wikileaks for a terrorist strike. The intentional disregard (by you) for the subtle is plainly obnoxious. But hey, it could be my personal bias against logical fallacies.
Not so worried about finding names of the leadership. I am pretty sure we know that part. The more interesting part that they may find there is the names of his bankers, suppliers, etc.
You are probably looking for a way to tag files. So you can search,sort and filter by tags. You are about a step away from discovering that mind-mapping applications are your cup of tea. I personally like "The Brain" of http://www.thebrain.com./ No, I am not in any way affiliated with the company other than as their customer (I did purchase the full $250 version with my own money).
You modularize the units which need re-testing. If you separate it into row data, analytics and conclusions, you can attempt verifying any one of those. It has multiple advantages. First, it reduces the cost of verifiability. At the moment someone who can understand the analytics but doesn't have the funds or expertise to reproduce the data can't make a fully informed judgement of validity. Just as someone who is an expert in experimentation isn't able to reproduce the experiments because their cost would not be justified without the analytics. This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is actually a huge problem in experimental science right now.
You are getting all worked up about these scientists' work as if they were doing volunteer work or something. These are paid professionals. And once again, they are paid from public funds. They don't go to collecting this data as a hobby after their day job. They do it during fully-paid work time. C'mon, who ever heard of an employee saying, "ok, I've done the investigation and this is what I conclude. Now trust me or do the investigation yourself." This kind of attitude is completely unacceptable when this investigation is conducted with public funds. And conclusions of such an investigation are high questionable even if done with private funds.
There isn't a dichotomy between trusting or not trusting someone. They have a responsibility to go the extra step to make sure everything they state is reproducible and verifiable. Otherwise, peer review has no meaning.
I've been able to find parking tickets from years back (because Police's system glitched and re-issued the ticket after it was resolved). It took less than half an hour to find all information on the tickets from 3 years prior.
Hanging folders with labels by category and year. Most categories only need 1 folder per year. At the end of the year, I move them to a "history" storage box and start a new set of folders.
Since this research is conducted with public funds, I would argue they have to publish collected data with all of their conclusions.
At the moment such requirement does not exist. This is actually a problem not only in this particular discipline. It's a problem in all of scientific publications. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical of most academic research in applied science. I know (because I've seen it happen personally) that people on occasion collect data at great expense in academic setting and then realize that a few of the variables weren't accounted for in the data collection. Then they pretend that those variables were accounted for when doing the analysis and publishing. Since publishability is the determining factor which drives their funding (ie, salary, kids' braces, mortgages, etc.), the pressure to overstate the accuracy of results is huge. The results may not be wrong. But the certainty to which they can state those results is definitely wrong.
The only honest way to publish is to separate the inputs, processing and outputs during the publication process. That is to have row data, analytics and conclusions clearly identified. The row data is NEVER published at the moment. In fact, most people feel a sense of proprietorship of their data and are very reluctant to reveal it... Even though it's collected with public funds. Without an ability to have row data go through altenative analytic interpretations, it's very difficult to actually believe that the conclusions (outputs) are the only possible ones.
Your statement about scientist in this case is completely untrue. They most certainly do have a vested interest in the conclusions since their funding is tied to the amount of public acceptance of their conclusions. And once again, since their conclusions directly effect public policy, even more specifically global energy policy, the amount scrutiny they have to receive is actually larger than the amount of scrutiny which banks have to receive. A bad decision by a quant in an investment bank could result in a loss of a few billions. A bad decision by a climate scientist, once it results in public policy, could result in a loss of trillions.
Not really. In fact, calling the opposition "bone heads" and loons and such only makes the proponents seem more fraudulent. Being dismissive of skeptics is a customary tool of con-man. If they want to be taken seriously, they should keep the gravitas in the phase of opposing view. Otherwise, they only lose credibility.
Climategate has actually proven that the degree of certainty of their conclusions is overstated. It hasn't disproven the theory, of course. But that's not really the point. In fact, you can't credibly claim damage to debate if it's shown that the side which goes by the mantra "trust us" is possibly deluding itself. Let's be honest, if the same kinds of emails came out from quant department of an investment bank, everyone would be saying that this bank is a fraud. I think we can insist on the same degree of rigor from science which is supposed to effect public policy as we do from investment banks.
You are not you at the point where there are 2 of you, I suppose. But it doesn't really matter. I was responding to a hypothetical. The guy mentioned simultaneously replacing all neurons. So my question was whether he realized that would mean capturing their state in the midst of firing.
Bad things happen to people even when they are perfectly law abiding. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to do what's legal. It just means doing what you have a right to do might require some effort.
It is in the eyes of the law. That's what "illegal" means. If you don't like the laws, try changing them. I'd love for you to be less anonymous while claiming that adultery should be illegal.
First of all, says who? And second of all, the evidence in this case would be the phone itself and the images on it. They are not "gathering" this evidence. They are copying it. From the copyright perspective, they would be in the clear if they held the phone as evidence pending resolution of the ticket. Of course, that would be problematic a whole slew of other perspectives. Copying without having the authority to copy, especially when directly informed by the copyright holder that the right to copy is withheld, is still very much copyright infringement. In fact, since they would make a copy after a direct request by the copyright holder not to copy, they may be liable for increased damages.
would financial vulnerability fall under "vulnerabilities"? would a town's financially vulnerable library network be able to use this exemption store copies of dvds in order address their municipal-level financial vulnerability of the network?
well, that's a question of what's a government. condominium board does have the power to create and enforce the bylaws. they can hire security guards who carry weapons and they can use those weapons as long as they don't violate the municipal, state, federal laws. there is no difference between them doing it and a city doing on city territory. but my whole point is that as long as you don't specify which granularity of government the law refers to, it must refer only to the government workers of the government which produced the law. here's a thing: you could buy out a small municipality and be its only official resident. at that point you'd have the power to make yourself a law enforcement officer of that municipality and its legislative branch. would you than be able to make laws allowing you to legally break copyrights? just because you, as a law enforcement officer, are required to do so by municipal laws (which you wrote)? i don't think that would fly. so the law must only apply to the federal law enforcement officers.
Slashdot Mirror
the reason rpn gives the shortest way to write expressions is that there is a natural 1-1 mapping between a stack and a tree. and since people try to organize most knowledge into trees (until they run into insolvable groups), the most compact way of representing trees will win as a method of representing most operations.
implies -- not infers. try "suggests" if you keep them confused.
The only unfair thing about Mannings' treatment is that he isn't getting a death penalty. He leaked classified information while wearing a uniform (ie, while under oath to lay down his life to protect that information). That's bona fide treason. The fact that he hasn't been charged with anything which could lead to a death penalty is a spit in the face of every man and woman in uniform.
Everything released by Manning was classified. I don't believe the gp blames Wikileaks for a terrorist strike. The intentional disregard (by you) for the subtle is plainly obnoxious. But hey, it could be my personal bias against logical fallacies.
Not so worried about finding names of the leadership. I am pretty sure we know that part. The more interesting part that they may find there is the names of his bankers, suppliers, etc.
You are probably looking for a way to tag files. So you can search,sort and filter by tags. You are about a step away from discovering that mind-mapping applications are your cup of tea. I personally like "The Brain" of http://www.thebrain.com./ No, I am not in any way affiliated with the company other than as their customer (I did purchase the full $250 version with my own money).
so you are talking to yourself?
You modularize the units which need re-testing. If you separate it into row data, analytics and conclusions, you can attempt verifying any one of those. It has multiple advantages. First, it reduces the cost of verifiability. At the moment someone who can understand the analytics but doesn't have the funds or expertise to reproduce the data can't make a fully informed judgement of validity. Just as someone who is an expert in experimentation isn't able to reproduce the experiments because their cost would not be justified without the analytics. This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is actually a huge problem in experimental science right now.
You are getting all worked up about these scientists' work as if they were doing volunteer work or something. These are paid professionals. And once again, they are paid from public funds. They don't go to collecting this data as a hobby after their day job. They do it during fully-paid work time. C'mon, who ever heard of an employee saying, "ok, I've done the investigation and this is what I conclude. Now trust me or do the investigation yourself." This kind of attitude is completely unacceptable when this investigation is conducted with public funds. And conclusions of such an investigation are high questionable even if done with private funds.
There isn't a dichotomy between trusting or not trusting someone. They have a responsibility to go the extra step to make sure everything they state is reproducible and verifiable. Otherwise, peer review has no meaning.
I've been able to find parking tickets from years back (because Police's system glitched and re-issued the ticket after it was resolved). It took less than half an hour to find all information on the tickets from 3 years prior.
Hanging folders with labels by category and year. Most categories only need 1 folder per year. At the end of the year, I move them to a "history" storage box and start a new set of folders.
Since this research is conducted with public funds, I would argue they have to publish collected data with all of their conclusions.
At the moment such requirement does not exist. This is actually a problem not only in this particular discipline. It's a problem in all of scientific publications. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical of most academic research in applied science. I know (because I've seen it happen personally) that people on occasion collect data at great expense in academic setting and then realize that a few of the variables weren't accounted for in the data collection. Then they pretend that those variables were accounted for when doing the analysis and publishing. Since publishability is the determining factor which drives their funding (ie, salary, kids' braces, mortgages, etc.), the pressure to overstate the accuracy of results is huge. The results may not be wrong. But the certainty to which they can state those results is definitely wrong.
The only honest way to publish is to separate the inputs, processing and outputs during the publication process. That is to have row data, analytics and conclusions clearly identified. The row data is NEVER published at the moment. In fact, most people feel a sense of proprietorship of their data and are very reluctant to reveal it... Even though it's collected with public funds. Without an ability to have row data go through altenative analytic interpretations, it's very difficult to actually believe that the conclusions (outputs) are the only possible ones.
Your statement about scientist in this case is completely untrue. They most certainly do have a vested interest in the conclusions since their funding is tied to the amount of public acceptance of their conclusions. And once again, since their conclusions directly effect public policy, even more specifically global energy policy, the amount scrutiny they have to receive is actually larger than the amount of scrutiny which banks have to receive. A bad decision by a quant in an investment bank could result in a loss of a few billions. A bad decision by a climate scientist, once it results in public policy, could result in a loss of trillions.
Not really. In fact, calling the opposition "bone heads" and loons and such only makes the proponents seem more fraudulent. Being dismissive of skeptics is a customary tool of con-man. If they want to be taken seriously, they should keep the gravitas in the phase of opposing view. Otherwise, they only lose credibility.
Climategate has actually proven that the degree of certainty of their conclusions is overstated. It hasn't disproven the theory, of course. But that's not really the point. In fact, you can't credibly claim damage to debate if it's shown that the side which goes by the mantra "trust us" is possibly deluding itself. Let's be honest, if the same kinds of emails came out from quant department of an investment bank, everyone would be saying that this bank is a fraud. I think we can insist on the same degree of rigor from science which is supposed to effect public policy as we do from investment banks.
Yep. Squaring a number is an O(n^2) operation.
You are not you at the point where there are 2 of you, I suppose. But it doesn't really matter. I was responding to a hypothetical. The guy mentioned simultaneously replacing all neurons. So my question was whether he realized that would mean capturing their state in the midst of firing.
in the midst of synapses firing? cause that's also part of "you".
You replace it all the time... In fact most of you is dedicated to replacing parts of you that just wore out... just on a smaller level.
Bad things happen to people even when they are perfectly law abiding. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to do what's legal. It just means doing what you have a right to do might require some effort.
It is in the eyes of the law. That's what "illegal" means. If you don't like the laws, try changing them. I'd love for you to be less anonymous while claiming that adultery should be illegal.
First of all, says who? And second of all, the evidence in this case would be the phone itself and the images on it. They are not "gathering" this evidence. They are copying it. From the copyright perspective, they would be in the clear if they held the phone as evidence pending resolution of the ticket. Of course, that would be problematic a whole slew of other perspectives. Copying without having the authority to copy, especially when directly informed by the copyright holder that the right to copy is withheld, is still very much copyright infringement. In fact, since they would make a copy after a direct request by the copyright holder not to copy, they may be liable for increased damages.
only federal government has sovereign immunity with respect to federal laws. you CAN sue states in federal courts. people do it all the time.
it would be ironic if it were true. it isn't.
would financial vulnerability fall under "vulnerabilities"? would a town's financially vulnerable library network be able to use this exemption store copies of dvds in order address their municipal-level financial vulnerability of the network?
well, that's a question of what's a government. condominium board does have the power to create and enforce the bylaws. they can hire security guards who carry weapons and they can use those weapons as long as they don't violate the municipal, state, federal laws. there is no difference between them doing it and a city doing on city territory. but my whole point is that as long as you don't specify which granularity of government the law refers to, it must refer only to the government workers of the government which produced the law. here's a thing: you could buy out a small municipality and be its only official resident. at that point you'd have the power to make yourself a law enforcement officer of that municipality and its legislative branch. would you than be able to make laws allowing you to legally break copyrights? just because you, as a law enforcement officer, are required to do so by municipal laws (which you wrote)? i don't think that would fly. so the law must only apply to the federal law enforcement officers.