A propaganda effort to change how safe drivers are can help a little bit, but what makes cities safer is physical world changes that make it easier to drive safely and harder to hit someone. In Seattle, for example, they redesigned 75th street after an accident and saw a major reduction in the number of collisions. (Things like removing parking, adding bike lanes, etc...)
Bike lanes are actually useful in that even if not used by bikes, they ensure you can nudge out into a road slightly for better visibility when turning into it if you need to. You also are less likely to intuitively drive as close to the center line as if you are avoiding parked cars.
We really cannot build a "sustainable habitat" anywhere, "biosphere 2" has the longest record of about 2 years, the experiment ended when they ran out of oxygen, food, and patience with each other.
We can build a base that is resupplied, and it would be a much cheaper to experiment with base building technology on the moon than it would be on Mars. The Moon is a couple of days away in a space capsule, Mars is two years away at best. Keeping humans alive is the hardest and most expensive part of space exploration and Earth is by far the most livable planet in the solar system, so why bother sending people? Why not spend that money understanding and repairing the incredibly sophisticated life support systems of the space ship we are all riding on now? We won't be making any interstellar trips until we do understand it enough to replicate it on a small scale.
We need robots for now, and humans later. Basically we should have a two-pronged approach, one aimed at developing the technologies for working in space and one aimed at the biological engineering side of eventually terraforming a self-sustainable world. That will be an undertaking of centuries, but it is our best bet for having humanity survive.
I'm Asian and my parents neither pushed nor helped me in schooling. In fact, they were downright unhelpful.
What did help you, aside from genetics? Of course it is heavily influenced by heredity, but I suspect culture makes a huge difference. Indeed, while I don't know what your parents in particular did, sometimes being unhelpful and making someone do more work or figure out more themselves is more helpful than helping.
If you have a gifted child, one that is naturally smart, but can't pass these tests it probably shows a lack a parental involvement. Throwing them in a gifted program without that same support structure of the family would be pointless.
Probably, but not necessarily--you can have a gifted child is gifted at something other than taking a test. You can also have (and frequently do have) the WRONG kind of parental involvement. Stress from family life or a smart but clueless parent, or the like.
Here, fraud presents itself quite naturally and they can't seem to find it.
Perhaps they are worried that the US government could be charged with fraud too since it seems they passed an act which they said would make it illegal for car manufacturers to make highly polluting cars but which, it appears, does nothing of the sort.
Who's worming their way out? Sounds like the prosecutors are trying to make a case that won't get thrown out. You can't just make up law as you go along because it's morally wrong.
You could send them to jail if you wanted to. Fraud, false statements to government, criminal conspiracy, etc...
If the tests are too easy, the kids aren't "gifted."
If they don't pass the test, then they aren't "gifted."
If the test uses words they don't understand, then what words would the researcher suggest the tests use that aren't "culturally biased?" Using three letter words well isn't a sign of ability.
A lot depends on how you're testing for giftedness.
Unfortunately if you don't have money or education yourself, your kids are much less likely to, so someone from a poverty-stricken background or with parents who aren't formally educated are on average going to do much worse on tests. They may also tend to be non-white. That's not racism, but it does create a systemic bias where you place people based on the money and education of their parents.
What we really need is enrichment programs designed to counteract that starting from a young age. A giftedness program isn't that unless we *make* it that.
But if we do use a giftedness program for that, we should be explicit about it--state whether the goal is to be representative of the population or to take the highest-scorers, for example.
The formal description of the edit distance is different from that described in the article. This is the one used in some cases of DNA or text comparison.
Insertion of a single symbol. If a = uv, then inserting the symbol x produces uxv. This can also be denoted e->x, using e to denote the empty string.
Deletion of a single symbol changes uxv to uv (x->e).
Substitution of a single symbol x for a symbol y x changes uxv to uyv (x->y).
It's not just about changing a symbol, it also includes adding and deleting symbols. That makes simple parallelization impossible.
It's not clear if the mathematical proof cited in the article is the simple one of only changing symbols, or the more complex case of symbol addition and deletion. From the article, it appears that they are talking about the simple case, which makes the more complex algorithm even more intractable.
That does make the simple hardware a little trickier, although for specific purposes there are some tricks you may be able to design for practically that become more efficient as the size of the insert grows. (An entire gene, for example, would be easier per gene to change than a single base pair).
Basically you can make a list of the changes. If you know you inserted a big object at place X, you can dynamically generate any requested index without having to rewrite the whole really long string, for example.
Similarly, you can design your machine to encode the object in a way which makes insertion and deletion easier. For example, allocate an array of blocks of memory to store the object and insert or delete blocks in the middle as it changes. We could call this a "linked list." Or an array with list-like elements.
If you want, you can set it up so that re-writing to an array occurs in spare cycles to eliminate the dynamic overhead created by the linked list or change history.
no one wants to be located in NY, very unfriendly to business here (one of the reasons im leaving)
Unfriendly to some business, but very friendly to other business. There are plusses and minuses. New York has well-developed case law on everything under the sun, and has a very competent commercial division of its courts that deals exclusively with million-dollar-plus commercial cases.
Every War Has Hacking, if you want to survive. You learn from the moment you start fighting.
In France, there were hedgerows, and you needed a way to deal with them.
In Korea, there were lots of jeeps but limited alcohol, so you figured out how to make a still from the parts of a jeep.
In Iraq, the army learned it needed MRAPs right away and that the military procurement system was so terrible it would never get them, so SECDEF basically overrode the whole damn procurement apparatus.
The Fifth Amendment means that when they torture you into confessing, it's not admissible in court? As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained. There should be more direct consequences for unlawfully obtaining evidence, because supressing evidence obtained by violating rights only protects the guilty, as you said. What we really need is a way of punishing law enforcement for violating the rights of INNOCENT people, as it is, they don't even say "I'm sorry". The best we can hope for is to actually get reimbursed for the property they destroy.
The "exclusionary rule" requires courts to exclude evidence that is obtained unconstitutionally. There's a simple reason why the remedy is exclusion of evidence rather than punishing cops who torture people: practicality. Courts can't punish cops who torture people, because somebody would need to arrest them.
The exclusionary rule was developed so that cops wouldn't have an *incentive* to abuse their power and gather evidence illegally. This in turn discourages them from doing so. We let bad guys go not because they're not guilty, but because as a practical matter it is the only power courts have to keep cops following the laws which protect the citizens from government overreach.
I'm pretty sure that they can't be forced to provide evidence that would implicate them in a criminal matter.
You are wrong, and if the court used the reasoning identified in the summary, it will likely be overturned on appeal.
You do not have to incriminate yourself by your testimony, but you can be obligated to give the state access to your records. The right against self-incrimination doesn't protect your *records*, it protects you. That is well-established law. (Stupid but true).
The fact that these are personal and not business records usually won't help and almost certainly won't help here. Usually that only matters because business records can be admitted even when they are "hearsay," meaning an out-of-court statement presented in court for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. From the summary the holding is that because they are personal records they are testimonial in nature and therefore covered by the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. I don't think an appellate panel anywhere in the country would buy that for a minute.
There are also serious military reasons to subsidize light trucks. It turns out that if you are ever in a sustained conventional war, manufacturing is really, really important.
Wrong; they have also secured rights to be the only producer in the united states.
Patents work on a simple premise: you disclose to the public enough about your invention so they can replicate it, in exchange for which you get a monopoly for X period of time.
When X period of time is done, you *no longer have a monopoly*.
So anyone who wants to sink the money into replicating the drug can replicate it. They may have some hurdles that make it more expensive, but it's legally possible.
Apple needs a money pit for its surplus of cash. Stock buybacks and dividends can only do so much for shareholder value. They might even discover a new automotive product category by pursuing this line of R&D, change the world (again) and make more money to sink into a money pit..
Actually, dividends are designed to pay earnings to shareholders. They can issue as much in the way of dividends as they want without it harming shareholder value. And that's what they *should* do if they have more capital than they can deploy intelligently, because otherwise that portion of the shareholder's value is just sitting there undeployed.
I'm no Apple fanboi but making cars isn't as hard as he makes it out to be. There are plenty of people out there that can be hired and build this business from the ground up. And a car company that was actually interested in what people want in a car would be a welcome change.
It is hard--it's a big, complex project. But you're right, you can hire a lot of that expertise. And then have the tricky leadership task of using that experience and combining it with a good, user-oriented vision that can let the product take off.
HAHA as if GM and Ford even belong on that list. They make cars. If you get 100k miles out of them, you're pretty fortunate. That's about all you can say.
What the hell are you talking about? I've seen light trucks from GM and Ford last decades and go for hundreds of thousands of miles with something resembling proper maintenance. Yeah, you have to get a transmission replaced every once in a while, or do other work, but if you take care of them they usually keep running.
The French Statement is malarkey. "Finally, contrary to what Google has stated, this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe." So we're not applying our laws extraterritorially, we're requiring the company to do so if they want to do business here.
To be fair, a lot of other countries have some form of that. But it's still ridiculous.
If they had said you had to geofence the results so they're not accessible in France, it would be more believable.
Should probably be pointed out that this has nothing to do with amazon other than it was their web hosting used.
Amazon is a big name. Amazon is related to the story because it makes more people read the story. It's like if you have a story that Donald Trump's barber is secretly Sweeney Todd. The story becomes Donald Trump.
Sorry, we have this pesky thing called free speech ( at least in the USA ). You cant squelch those that do not believe you, and speak out about it.
Yes, this is generally true. We have severe limits on it (e.g. time, place, and manner restrictions are fine), but we do have free speech. It causes a lot of problems because what most people choose to say is either stupid or easily manipulated by dark forces.
Climate change deniers are mostly people who have been easily manipulated by dark forces.
We don't criminalize dissent here. Congressmen who cost many lives by supporting bad policy or who keep young men in prison for millions of extra man-years because they won't give the Smarter Sentencing Act a vote on the house floor because they're too afraid of looking soft on crime are left alone. We don't hurt them just because they murder people through policy, whether that's keeping people in prison to die or failing to support reforms necessary to combat global warming. Murdering with your hands is bad. Murdering through obviously bad policy decisions isn't something we criminalize.
With climate change, politicians are murdering the whole planet through bad policy decisions.
Once they're murdering a couple of billion people with free speech, it's debatable whether it's worth keeping speech free. There are legitimate arguments both ways.
Easy to break. Uses long rope to move vehicle over land. Tied to human. Human steps off very tall cliff at destination. As we all know from cartoons, if he looks down, he will then fall.
If i have a contract, i can't cancel it before the contract allows me to without a penalty, so, why do you lock my phone?, i'd still be under the obligation of paying for the service?. Phone network locking shouldn't be a thing, it's beyond stupid.
Money.
First, they don't want you to switch services. If they make it harder, or make it more likely you'll wait till a certain time and then forget, they make more money.
Second, they won't collect that penalty. They will collect it from some people and then collect a percentage of it by selling it to a debt collector.
Slashdot Mirror
A propaganda effort to change how safe drivers are can help a little bit, but what makes cities safer is physical world changes that make it easier to drive safely and harder to hit someone. In Seattle, for example, they redesigned 75th street after an accident and saw a major reduction in the number of collisions. (Things like removing parking, adding bike lanes, etc...)
http://www.seattle.gov/transpo...
Bike lanes are actually useful in that even if not used by bikes, they ensure you can nudge out into a road slightly for better visibility when turning into it if you need to. You also are less likely to intuitively drive as close to the center line as if you are avoiding parked cars.
We really cannot build a "sustainable habitat" anywhere, "biosphere 2" has the longest record of about 2 years, the experiment ended when they ran out of oxygen, food, and patience with each other.
We can build a base that is resupplied, and it would be a much cheaper to experiment with base building technology on the moon than it would be on Mars. The Moon is a couple of days away in a space capsule, Mars is two years away at best. Keeping humans alive is the hardest and most expensive part of space exploration and Earth is by far the most livable planet in the solar system, so why bother sending people? Why not spend that money understanding and repairing the incredibly sophisticated life support systems of the space ship we are all riding on now? We won't be making any interstellar trips until we do understand it enough to replicate it on a small scale.
We need robots for now, and humans later. Basically we should have a two-pronged approach, one aimed at developing the technologies for working in space and one aimed at the biological engineering side of eventually terraforming a self-sustainable world. That will be an undertaking of centuries, but it is our best bet for having humanity survive.
I think you don't know how the legal system works. Prosecutors file an arm long list of plausible charges, hoping than one or two will stick...
No, I actually know a lot about how it works, I'm just calling BS on the idea that this one "loophole" necessarily makes them immune from prosecution.
I'm Asian and my parents neither pushed nor helped me in schooling. In fact, they were downright unhelpful.
What did help you, aside from genetics? Of course it is heavily influenced by heredity, but I suspect culture makes a huge difference. Indeed, while I don't know what your parents in particular did, sometimes being unhelpful and making someone do more work or figure out more themselves is more helpful than helping.
If you have a gifted child, one that is naturally smart, but can't pass these tests it probably shows a lack a parental involvement. Throwing them in a gifted program without that same support structure of the family would be pointless.
Probably, but not necessarily--you can have a gifted child is gifted at something other than taking a test. You can also have (and frequently do have) the WRONG kind of parental involvement. Stress from family life or a smart but clueless parent, or the like.
Here, fraud presents itself quite naturally and they can't seem to find it.
Perhaps they are worried that the US government could be charged with fraud too since it seems they passed an act which they said would make it illegal for car manufacturers to make highly polluting cars but which, it appears, does nothing of the sort.
Congress has immunity from lying. No, really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Who's worming their way out?
Sounds like the prosecutors are trying to make a case that won't get thrown out.
You can't just make up law as you go along because it's morally wrong.
You could send them to jail if you wanted to. Fraud, false statements to government, criminal conspiracy, etc...
Just maybe not under the clean air act.
If the tests are too easy, the kids aren't "gifted."
If they don't pass the test, then they aren't "gifted."
If the test uses words they don't understand, then what words would the researcher suggest the tests use that aren't "culturally biased?" Using three letter words well isn't a sign of ability.
A lot depends on how you're testing for giftedness.
Unfortunately if you don't have money or education yourself, your kids are much less likely to, so someone from a poverty-stricken background or with parents who aren't formally educated are on average going to do much worse on tests. They may also tend to be non-white. That's not racism, but it does create a systemic bias where you place people based on the money and education of their parents.
What we really need is enrichment programs designed to counteract that starting from a young age. A giftedness program isn't that unless we *make* it that.
But if we do use a giftedness program for that, we should be explicit about it--state whether the goal is to be representative of the population or to take the highest-scorers, for example.
The formal description of the edit distance is different from that described in the article. This is the one used in some cases of DNA or text comparison.
It's not just about changing a symbol, it also includes adding and deleting symbols. That makes simple parallelization impossible.
It's not clear if the mathematical proof cited in the article is the simple one of only changing symbols, or the more complex case of symbol addition and deletion. From the article, it appears that they are talking about the simple case, which makes the more complex algorithm even more intractable.
That does make the simple hardware a little trickier, although for specific purposes there are some tricks you may be able to design for practically that become more efficient as the size of the insert grows. (An entire gene, for example, would be easier per gene to change than a single base pair).
Basically you can make a list of the changes. If you know you inserted a big object at place X, you can dynamically generate any requested index without having to rewrite the whole really long string, for example.
Similarly, you can design your machine to encode the object in a way which makes insertion and deletion easier. For example, allocate an array of blocks of memory to store the object and insert or delete blocks in the middle as it changes. We could call this a "linked list." Or an array with list-like elements.
If you want, you can set it up so that re-writing to an array occurs in spare cycles to eliminate the dynamic overhead created by the linked list or change history.
no one wants to be located in NY, very unfriendly to business here (one of the reasons im leaving)
Unfriendly to some business, but very friendly to other business. There are plusses and minuses. New York has well-developed case law on everything under the sun, and has a very competent commercial division of its courts that deals exclusively with million-dollar-plus commercial cases.
Every War Has Hacking, if you want to survive. You learn from the moment you start fighting.
In France, there were hedgerows, and you needed a way to deal with them.
In Korea, there were lots of jeeps but limited alcohol, so you figured out how to make a still from the parts of a jeep.
In Iraq, the army learned it needed MRAPs right away and that the military procurement system was so terrible it would never get them, so SECDEF basically overrode the whole damn procurement apparatus.
The Fifth Amendment means that when they torture you into confessing, it's not admissible in court? As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained. There should be more direct consequences for unlawfully obtaining evidence, because supressing evidence obtained by violating rights only protects the guilty, as you said. What we really need is a way of punishing law enforcement for violating the rights of INNOCENT people, as it is, they don't even say "I'm sorry". The best we can hope for is to actually get reimbursed for the property they destroy.
The "exclusionary rule" requires courts to exclude evidence that is obtained unconstitutionally. There's a simple reason why the remedy is exclusion of evidence rather than punishing cops who torture people: practicality. Courts can't punish cops who torture people, because somebody would need to arrest them.
The exclusionary rule was developed so that cops wouldn't have an *incentive* to abuse their power and gather evidence illegally. This in turn discourages them from doing so. We let bad guys go not because they're not guilty, but because as a practical matter it is the only power courts have to keep cops following the laws which protect the citizens from government overreach.
I'm pretty sure that they can't be forced to provide evidence that would implicate them in a criminal matter.
You are wrong, and if the court used the reasoning identified in the summary, it will likely be overturned on appeal.
You do not have to incriminate yourself by your testimony, but you can be obligated to give the state access to your records. The right against self-incrimination doesn't protect your *records*, it protects you. That is well-established law. (Stupid but true).
The fact that these are personal and not business records usually won't help and almost certainly won't help here. Usually that only matters because business records can be admitted even when they are "hearsay," meaning an out-of-court statement presented in court for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. From the summary the holding is that because they are personal records they are testimonial in nature and therefore covered by the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. I don't think an appellate panel anywhere in the country would buy that for a minute.
There are also serious military reasons to subsidize light trucks. It turns out that if you are ever in a sustained conventional war, manufacturing is really, really important.
Wrong; they have also secured rights to be the only producer in the united states.
Patents work on a simple premise: you disclose to the public enough about your invention so they can replicate it, in exchange for which you get a monopoly for X period of time.
When X period of time is done, you *no longer have a monopoly*.
So anyone who wants to sink the money into replicating the drug can replicate it. They may have some hurdles that make it more expensive, but it's legally possible.
The post is saying they're the only manufacturer selling in the US. The patent has expired. Another company can make it and sell it here if they want.
Apple needs a money pit for its surplus of cash. Stock buybacks and dividends can only do so much for shareholder value. They might even discover a new automotive product category by pursuing this line of R&D, change the world (again) and make more money to sink into a money pit..
Actually, dividends are designed to pay earnings to shareholders. They can issue as much in the way of dividends as they want without it harming shareholder value. And that's what they *should* do if they have more capital than they can deploy intelligently, because otherwise that portion of the shareholder's value is just sitting there undeployed.
I'm no Apple fanboi but making cars isn't as hard as he makes it out to be. There are plenty of people out there that can be hired and build this business from the ground up. And a car company that was actually interested in what people want in a car would be a welcome change.
It is hard--it's a big, complex project. But you're right, you can hire a lot of that expertise. And then have the tricky leadership task of using that experience and combining it with a good, user-oriented vision that can let the product take off.
HAHA as if GM and Ford even belong on that list. They make cars. If you get 100k miles out of them, you're pretty fortunate. That's about all you can say.
What the hell are you talking about? I've seen light trucks from GM and Ford last decades and go for hundreds of thousands of miles with something resembling proper maintenance. Yeah, you have to get a transmission replaced every once in a while, or do other work, but if you take care of them they usually keep running.
The French Statement is malarkey. "Finally, contrary to what Google has stated, this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe." So we're not applying our laws extraterritorially, we're requiring the company to do so if they want to do business here.
To be fair, a lot of other countries have some form of that. But it's still ridiculous.
If they had said you had to geofence the results so they're not accessible in France, it would be more believable.
Should probably be pointed out that this has nothing to do with amazon other than it was their web hosting used.
Amazon is a big name. Amazon is related to the story because it makes more people read the story. It's like if you have a story that Donald Trump's barber is secretly Sweeney Todd. The story becomes Donald Trump.
Sorry, we have this pesky thing called free speech ( at least in the USA ). You cant squelch those that do not believe you, and speak out about it.
Yes, this is generally true. We have severe limits on it (e.g. time, place, and manner restrictions are fine), but we do have free speech. It causes a lot of problems because what most people choose to say is either stupid or easily manipulated by dark forces.
Climate change deniers are mostly people who have been easily manipulated by dark forces.
We don't criminalize dissent here. Congressmen who cost many lives by supporting bad policy or who keep young men in prison for millions of extra man-years because they won't give the Smarter Sentencing Act a vote on the house floor because they're too afraid of looking soft on crime are left alone. We don't hurt them just because they murder people through policy, whether that's keeping people in prison to die or failing to support reforms necessary to combat global warming. Murdering with your hands is bad. Murdering through obviously bad policy decisions isn't something we criminalize.
With climate change, politicians are murdering the whole planet through bad policy decisions.
Once they're murdering a couple of billion people with free speech, it's debatable whether it's worth keeping speech free. There are legitimate arguments both ways.
They're not murdering a couple of billion people.
They're murdering all of the people.
Easy to break. Uses long rope to move vehicle over land. Tied to human. Human steps off very tall cliff at destination. As we all know from cartoons, if he looks down, he will then fall.
If i have a contract, i can't cancel it before the contract allows me to without a penalty, so, why do you lock my phone?, i'd still be under the obligation of paying for the service?. Phone network locking shouldn't be a thing, it's beyond stupid.
Money.
First, they don't want you to switch services. If they make it harder, or make it more likely you'll wait till a certain time and then forget, they make more money.
Second, they won't collect that penalty. They will collect it from some people and then collect a percentage of it by selling it to a debt collector.
For the majority of people, a slight difference in emissions would be preferable to a noticeable drop in performance.
For the majority of individuals, yes. Because you're not *paying* for the harm your emissions do.