Actually, oscillating neutrinos have been detected before. They just were from the sun, not human made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, I was wondering about that--I remember a physics prof saying that all particles oscillated at an integer multiple of Planck's constant, and I knew we'd detected neutrinos before.
IIRC it's how we detect a supernova before we see the fireball--the neutrinos are so small and move so fast that they make it out of the core of the exploding star a short time before the star actually explodes, giving us a chance to train an instrument or two on the star.
Astrophysicists in the room, feel free to correct me.
If cab drivers are going to riot in the street and inflict personal harm and property damage, who the hell thinks an autonomous car has a snowballs chance in hell ?
There are not enough cab drivers to cause a revolution on their own, and the people aren't with them. The state has far more power and will apply it to suppress personal harm and property damage, and the public will be with the state. Thus they can slow change by various methods--most notably bribery of elected officials and regulatory capture--but they cannot stop it entirely.
Money is the only thing that would let them stop it entirely given those circumstances. (As we see with the health insurance industry which is able to largely prevent meaningful change. Obamacare came 16 years after Bill Clinton tried something bigger, after all.) And the industry doesn't have enough money to do that.
The movie was an unmitigated disaster, and honestly if this were my property I'd never again let someone try to make a movie based on it.
It was, but the solution isn't shoving it in a drawer, it's turning it over to a better team. The TNG movies were not particularly good (the last one was ridiculous), but the new Trek movies are good. (They have the problem of running too far away from the science and thought-problems, but they are fun to watch). The rotoscoped LOTR was generally hated by all, but the Peter Jackson (although having lots of problems) was a great production to have made.
Joss Whedon could do a fun D&D movie, for example. Thinking about who else might, I am really curious as to what Aaron Sorkin would do with it... "The Tea Party Ogre..."
I had a bug once where red and blue values were swapping places across thousands of pixels that took quite a while to hunt down once. It turns out there was a function doSomething called with parameters (pixel[i++],pixel[i++],pixel[i++]) while doing transformations. The compiled code pushed the third parameter onto the stack first, so it was using the red value from the array in the blue spot and vise-versa across the entire image.
I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.
We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.
I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!
Logical thinking in particular is the most likely area for improvement. It would also give good foundation skills for editing, but not good enough on their own.
You might see an improvement on LSAT scores. The SAT just doesn't test that stuff well.
Also, keep in mind that intro Comp Sci on its own is very hit-and-miss in college, and there's no reason it wouldn't be in high school.
Whatever point you were trying to make there, especially that Russians need to stop being assholes, doesn't work when everything you've based it on involves the US being even bigger assholes.
Actually, that's not true. International relations works by allowing everyone to be assholes while pretending that they're awesome. The idea is countries make agreements that say one thing (usually a compromise of some kind) while claiming to their politically important classes that the agreement is good because it's another thing. The classic example I think of is the Security Council's authorization for the second Iraq war, which was designed to legally allow the US go to war with Iraq while still letting France claim that they had never meant it to authorize the war with Iraq. It's really about marketing, spin, and convincingly lying in a way which will appease (or in which you can leverage the perceived need to appease) your hard-liners.
We can be fairly sure that the NSA has some serial dedicated hardware for cracking common encryption systems like AES. They will still be reliant on things like dictionary attacks because brute-forcing the entire keyspace is impractical (unless they have quantum computers).
How should we react to that? Well, obviously we need a good password that can resist dictionary attacks. Beyond that, unless you are a big enough perceived threat to warrant time on an expensive computer you probably don't have to worry too much. They certainly won't be using it to help out the FBI, risking its existence coming to light.
Maybe. Based on the documentaries that have been made, it's pretty clear that the NSA used their phone-metadata-recording to help the FBI locate the Boston Bomber, despite the risk that it would become public. (Which is did shortly thereafter but for other reasons--i.e. Snowden).
The FBI does domestic counterterror. The NSA is the big bad in terms of not seeing the inherent bad and threat to democracy in snooping on everyone's communications, sure, but they're still trying to be good guys and so they'll share information sometimes when they see a good result from doing so.
What would the existence of an exascale supercomputer mean for today's popular encryption/hashing algorithms?
Exactly.
My first thought was the new addition will be tasked by the NSA/FiveEyes to break encryption for intercepted communications.
Why are you assuming they don't already have one doing that, and this is just a public version?
There is a lot of highly secured government data infrastructure out there that I hear about even though not inquiring. The cable in Virginia that gets cut by a backhoe accidentally and guys in a black van show up ten minutes later. The contract for a government data center inside a faraday cage. The government likely already has much more computing power available than we know about.
It's convenient. You might be typing with one hand, for example. Please don't take the caps lock away from me because you want everything to be popular.
There are two shift keys. Unless you have tiny, tiny hands, you can reach one of them with one hand that also reaches the key you want to shift. It's not even terrible hard--much easier, for example, than a one-octave split on a piano.
Acceptable margin of error for the identified height detection methods, whereas you could use simpler height detection methods if you were closer to the ground.
As to complex ideas, I fully expect there are lots of legitimate challenges to my proposal that may make it unworkable or that may challenge existing assumptions. That's fine; that's why we propose ideas. So other smart people can tear them down and propose *better* ideas. Or can have their assumptions challenged, like asking questions about how we tell how high off the ground something is.
There is no way it makes sense to let private drones go over Manhattan and not be mostly bound to roads, for example. Medium-sized cities likewise might be able to accommodate a drone infrastructure bound to roads but should probably not be dealing with drones in free-flight. Of course, you might also be able to have drones hook into a cable system once they reach a certain area...
100 feet of buffer is inadequate. How the hell do you measure your AGL when you're flying? You either use a radar altimeter ($25K installed on an airplane worth $20K) or you use the baro altimeter, which has an acceptable calibration error, plus the local altimeter setting (atmospheric pressure) which has an error band, and there's error because you're not right over the reporting station. 1000' is the minimum instrument separation. Bezos just wants to steal a band of airspace. I say give him 0' to 10' AGL, just like a UPS truck.
No, but how bout you give him 20-30' so long as he stays over a road, and limit windspeed and weather conditions he can operate in? Sink a billion or so into detecting wires and other obstacles over roadways. Now you've got a second level road and he's flying higher than vehicles but lower than aerial vehicles. It's inefficient compared to full use of airspace but still faster than regular traffic.
The idea is that if you vaccinate people but they still get the disease and don't get it as badly, they might not die as quickly, or might not die.
So if they get sick but don't die, the disease has longer to spread.
So I suppose if you're an Anti-vaxxer it's a great argument for why only you should get vaccinated for highly virulent diseases, but you should just let everyone else die faster.
Also, the Court will probably want the law to be accessible, so they'll likely find some logic to rule against the state.
Pretty much every state in the country has annotated laws that are owned by a private company under some kind of agreement with the state. The private company puts some money into indexing them, may have an el cheapo version available online, and charges very mysterious pricing for commercial use that varies by who your sales rep is and how big you are and the like. Physical copies may also be available.
You can go to a library that has it, of course, but it's pretty ridiculous in today's day and age that you need to go to a library to get access to a law.
It's kind of like the building code--basically a group of experts is involved so the state lets them copyright the laws and sell them rather than having the state *pay* them for their work and make the result free.
And yet any time someone suggestes stronger regulation the entire IT community comes out up in arms and shouts "free market".
The greatest strength of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing it to be nimble and to take risks.
The greatest weakness of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing companies to shit all over thier customers.
They are able to do that because customers let them. If you want to use app X, you give app X access to way more information than app X needs, because consumers fundamentally don't care enough that apps compete on the basis of privacy.
There's a little difference in the enterprise space, of course. But on the consumer side, people just don't care.
Look, I can understand a few scattered crazies who would like to assassinate the president. But when thousands of people, groups, regions, countries, religions all over the world want to take him out, some serious self-contemplation is in order.
They don't. There are not thousands of countries, nor (probably) religions. Thousands of people want to kill you--or at least would kill you, which isn't quite the same thing--if you give the order to bomb them. The US bombs groups, generally ones that do things that suck, and then those people encourage their friends to want to kill the US.
That doesn't mean US drone policy couldn't use a hard look--it could--but just because thousands of people want to kill you doesn't mean you are in need of serious contemplation. Thousands of people wanted to kill pretty much every head of state in history whose country was involved in a way.
Don't blame the atmosphere.
on
Pluto's Haze
·
· Score: 1
Freezing and falling to Pluto's surface... if you were that far from the sun, you'd do it to.
>> Ugliest Corners of the Internet...online threats to the president and his family
How is this uglier than child prostitution, the rapid increase of murder in inner cities, or...?
I get that some level of executive security is probably a good thing, but does the Secret Service really need 1,500 people on staff?
It's not so much that it's *worse* than those things. It's certainly not worth than sex trafficking, for example, where you get these kids raped fifteen times a day. (Read "River of Innocents" to learn more, for example, or Kevin Bales' or Victor Malarek's books).
Fighting over what's "worst" or "ugliest" or so on is like fights over whose genocide is worse, or who has the most messed up family. At the end of the day it's pretty silly and it's usually a waste of time because you could be trying to deal with those problems rather than fighting about how to classify them. So let's accept "ugliest" as a rhetorical inaccuracy and move on.
Because a lot of it pretty goddamn ugly, and they should be able to say it. Reading a single white supremacist website and it's like eating this vile filth that makes you want the whole country to take a shower. It must suck to be the SS agent who *has* to read that shit for his job. I'm sure you professionally detach a bit while having to pretend to relate and are actually able to go after some of the fuckers, so it's not as terrible as it could be, but it's still pretty ugly.
So long as uber abides by all the laws regarding safety and insurance, the same laws as taxi companies have to, then it should be okay.
Two things to keep in mind - uber is owned by assholes. And it isn't ride SHARING if you are paying for it. Other than that, carry on.
We care because established players use regulatory capture to stop new and better business models, and a lot of those supposedly safety and insurance related laws are BS put there by the established players that vary from place to place.
You should only pay out on pay-per-click, and even then, the payout should be largely affected by how long that user stayed after clicking an ad, whether they bought anything, etc.
Under a Lochean earned income theory of value (i.e. you should get paid for what you earn), paying an advertiser based on how successful you are at *retaining* customers sent your way seems wrong in most cases. The advertiser is then earning or not earning money based on how good of a job *you* are doing at retaining customers, rather than based on how good of a job *they* are doing at sending you customers.
There is one relevant component there still which is whether they are sending you the *right* customers, but usually we measure that by demographics and income rather than by the metric of how long they stay on your site, which is much more dependent on whether *you* are doing a good job retaining customers.
On the other hand, if you are determining what the advertiser should be paid based just on the free-market whatever-we-agree to idea, then you can pay them based on anything you both agree to, including the number of elephants who would fit in your living room. Most advertisers don't sell advertising based on how effective they are at getting customers to buy things, though--that's what salespeople do, and our society tends to make a significant distinction between sales and advertising.
Until it can seamlessly change the words I'm saying, as I'm saying them, into the receivers language without so much as a configuration nor without talking over the top of me, it is not the Star Trek Universal Translator.
Yeah. How dare a tech company be aspirational.
"Don't catch any bugs!" --Klingon border sentry to Enterprise
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, oscillating neutrinos have been detected before. They just were from the sun, not human made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, I was wondering about that--I remember a physics prof saying that all particles oscillated at an integer multiple of Planck's constant, and I knew we'd detected neutrinos before.
IIRC it's how we detect a supernova before we see the fireball--the neutrinos are so small and move so fast that they make it out of the core of the exploding star a short time before the star actually explodes, giving us a chance to train an instrument or two on the star.
Astrophysicists in the room, feel free to correct me.
I wouldn't worry about actions - law in this country has become discretionary, frivolous, and inconsistent. It's not based on harm any more.
Worry instead about getting noticed - that seems to start the process.
As it turns out, most human beings *drastically underestimate* the likelihood that they will get caught. It's why people commit crime.
A guy in Quebec got boosted from prison by a helicopter coming to pick him up. A *Helicopter*. Drones are cheaper and an easy way to get stuff in.
The end result will be prisons will likely be given permission to shoot down drones within a geofenced area.
If cab drivers are going to riot in the street and inflict personal harm and property damage, who the hell thinks an autonomous car has a snowballs chance in hell ?
There are not enough cab drivers to cause a revolution on their own, and the people aren't with them. The state has far more power and will apply it to suppress personal harm and property damage, and the public will be with the state. Thus they can slow change by various methods--most notably bribery of elected officials and regulatory capture--but they cannot stop it entirely.
Money is the only thing that would let them stop it entirely given those circumstances. (As we see with the health insurance industry which is able to largely prevent meaningful change. Obamacare came 16 years after Bill Clinton tried something bigger, after all.) And the industry doesn't have enough money to do that.
That's a very standard case of undefined behavior, and anybody with any real knowledge of C or C++ would know that this doesn't work.
It turns out you can say that about pretty much any mistake. And that it is pretty useless to do so.
The movie was an unmitigated disaster, and honestly if this were my property I'd never again let someone try to make a movie based on it.
It was, but the solution isn't shoving it in a drawer, it's turning it over to a better team. The TNG movies were not particularly good (the last one was ridiculous), but the new Trek movies are good. (They have the problem of running too far away from the science and thought-problems, but they are fun to watch). The rotoscoped LOTR was generally hated by all, but the Peter Jackson (although having lots of problems) was a great production to have made.
Joss Whedon could do a fun D&D movie, for example. Thinking about who else might, I am really curious as to what Aaron Sorkin would do with it... "The Tea Party Ogre..."
I had a bug once where red and blue values were swapping places across thousands of pixels that took quite a while to hunt down once. It turns out there was a function doSomething called with parameters (pixel[i++],pixel[i++],pixel[i++]) while doing transformations. The compiled code pushed the third parameter onto the stack first, so it was using the red value from the array in the blue spot and vise-versa across the entire image.
I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.
We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.
I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!
Logical thinking in particular is the most likely area for improvement. It would also give good foundation skills for editing, but not good enough on their own.
You might see an improvement on LSAT scores. The SAT just doesn't test that stuff well.
Also, keep in mind that intro Comp Sci on its own is very hit-and-miss in college, and there's no reason it wouldn't be in high school.
To be fair there isn't much you can do with 5 million. I imagine that the original internet back in the 70s cost a lot more to put together.
I'll find a good use for it if you can't. Paypal me.
Whatever point you were trying to make there, especially that Russians need to stop being assholes, doesn't work when everything you've based it on involves the US being even bigger assholes.
Actually, that's not true. International relations works by allowing everyone to be assholes while pretending that they're awesome. The idea is countries make agreements that say one thing (usually a compromise of some kind) while claiming to their politically important classes that the agreement is good because it's another thing. The classic example I think of is the Security Council's authorization for the second Iraq war, which was designed to legally allow the US go to war with Iraq while still letting France claim that they had never meant it to authorize the war with Iraq. It's really about marketing, spin, and convincingly lying in a way which will appease (or in which you can leverage the perceived need to appease) your hard-liners.
If robots are designed to be compassionate, they will eventually realize that humans are not and will implement the zeroeth law.
We can be fairly sure that the NSA has some serial dedicated hardware for cracking common encryption systems like AES. They will still be reliant on things like dictionary attacks because brute-forcing the entire keyspace is impractical (unless they have quantum computers).
How should we react to that? Well, obviously we need a good password that can resist dictionary attacks. Beyond that, unless you are a big enough perceived threat to warrant time on an expensive computer you probably don't have to worry too much. They certainly won't be using it to help out the FBI, risking its existence coming to light.
Maybe. Based on the documentaries that have been made, it's pretty clear that the NSA used their phone-metadata-recording to help the FBI locate the Boston Bomber, despite the risk that it would become public. (Which is did shortly thereafter but for other reasons--i.e. Snowden).
The FBI does domestic counterterror. The NSA is the big bad in terms of not seeing the inherent bad and threat to democracy in snooping on everyone's communications, sure, but they're still trying to be good guys and so they'll share information sometimes when they see a good result from doing so.
Exactly.
My first thought was the new addition will be tasked by the NSA/FiveEyes to break encryption for intercepted communications.
Why are you assuming they don't already have one doing that, and this is just a public version?
There is a lot of highly secured government data infrastructure out there that I hear about even though not inquiring. The cable in Virginia that gets cut by a backhoe accidentally and guys in a black van show up ten minutes later. The contract for a government data center inside a faraday cage. The government likely already has much more computing power available than we know about.
It's convenient. You might be typing with one hand, for example. Please don't take the caps lock away from me because you want everything to be popular.
There are two shift keys. Unless you have tiny, tiny hands, you can reach one of them with one hand that also reaches the key you want to shift. It's not even terrible hard--much easier, for example, than a one-octave split on a piano.
Acceptable margin of error for the identified height detection methods, whereas you could use simpler height detection methods if you were closer to the ground.
As to complex ideas, I fully expect there are lots of legitimate challenges to my proposal that may make it unworkable or that may challenge existing assumptions. That's fine; that's why we propose ideas. So other smart people can tear them down and propose *better* ideas. Or can have their assumptions challenged, like asking questions about how we tell how high off the ground something is.
There is no way it makes sense to let private drones go over Manhattan and not be mostly bound to roads, for example. Medium-sized cities likewise might be able to accommodate a drone infrastructure bound to roads but should probably not be dealing with drones in free-flight. Of course, you might also be able to have drones hook into a cable system once they reach a certain area...
100 feet of buffer is inadequate. How the hell do you measure your AGL when you're flying? You either use a radar altimeter ($25K installed on an airplane worth $20K) or you use the baro altimeter, which has an acceptable calibration error, plus the local altimeter setting (atmospheric pressure) which has an error band, and there's error because you're not right over the reporting station. 1000' is the minimum instrument separation. Bezos just wants to steal a band of airspace. I say give him 0' to 10' AGL, just like a UPS truck.
No, but how bout you give him 20-30' so long as he stays over a road, and limit windspeed and weather conditions he can operate in? Sink a billion or so into detecting wires and other obstacles over roadways. Now you've got a second level road and he's flying higher than vehicles but lower than aerial vehicles. It's inefficient compared to full use of airspace but still faster than regular traffic.
The idea is that if you vaccinate people but they still get the disease and don't get it as badly, they might not die as quickly, or might not die.
So if they get sick but don't die, the disease has longer to spread.
So I suppose if you're an Anti-vaxxer it's a great argument for why only you should get vaccinated for highly virulent diseases, but you should just let everyone else die faster.
Also, the Court will probably want the law to be accessible, so they'll likely find some logic to rule against the state.
Pretty much every state in the country has annotated laws that are owned by a private company under some kind of agreement with the state. The private company puts some money into indexing them, may have an el cheapo version available online, and charges very mysterious pricing for commercial use that varies by who your sales rep is and how big you are and the like. Physical copies may also be available.
In New York, for example, McKinney's costs about $10,500 for a physical copy: http://legalsolutions.thomsonr...
You can go to a library that has it, of course, but it's pretty ridiculous in today's day and age that you need to go to a library to get access to a law.
It's kind of like the building code--basically a group of experts is involved so the state lets them copyright the laws and sell them rather than having the state *pay* them for their work and make the result free.
And yet any time someone suggestes stronger regulation the entire IT community comes out up in arms and shouts "free market".
The greatest strength of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing it to be nimble and to take risks.
The greatest weakness of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing companies to shit all over thier customers.
They are able to do that because customers let them. If you want to use app X, you give app X access to way more information than app X needs, because consumers fundamentally don't care enough that apps compete on the basis of privacy.
There's a little difference in the enterprise space, of course. But on the consumer side, people just don't care.
Look, I can understand a few scattered crazies who would like to assassinate the president. But when thousands of people, groups, regions, countries, religions all over the world want to take him out, some serious self-contemplation is in order.
They don't. There are not thousands of countries, nor (probably) religions. Thousands of people want to kill you--or at least would kill you, which isn't quite the same thing--if you give the order to bomb them. The US bombs groups, generally ones that do things that suck, and then those people encourage their friends to want to kill the US.
That doesn't mean US drone policy couldn't use a hard look--it could--but just because thousands of people want to kill you doesn't mean you are in need of serious contemplation. Thousands of people wanted to kill pretty much every head of state in history whose country was involved in a way.
Freezing and falling to Pluto's surface... if you were that far from the sun, you'd do it to.
>> Ugliest Corners of the Internet...online threats to the president and his family
How is this uglier than child prostitution, the rapid increase of murder in inner cities, or...?
I get that some level of executive security is probably a good thing, but does the Secret Service really need 1,500 people on staff?
It's not so much that it's *worse* than those things. It's certainly not worth than sex trafficking, for example, where you get these kids raped fifteen times a day. (Read "River of Innocents" to learn more, for example, or Kevin Bales' or Victor Malarek's books).
Fighting over what's "worst" or "ugliest" or so on is like fights over whose genocide is worse, or who has the most messed up family. At the end of the day it's pretty silly and it's usually a waste of time because you could be trying to deal with those problems rather than fighting about how to classify them. So let's accept "ugliest" as a rhetorical inaccuracy and move on.
Because a lot of it pretty goddamn ugly, and they should be able to say it. Reading a single white supremacist website and it's like eating this vile filth that makes you want the whole country to take a shower. It must suck to be the SS agent who *has* to read that shit for his job. I'm sure you professionally detach a bit while having to pretend to relate and are actually able to go after some of the fuckers, so it's not as terrible as it could be, but it's still pretty ugly.
So long as uber abides by all the laws regarding safety and insurance, the same laws as taxi companies have to, then it should be okay.
Two things to keep in mind - uber is owned by assholes. And it isn't ride SHARING if you are paying for it. Other than that, carry on.
We care because established players use regulatory capture to stop new and better business models, and a lot of those supposedly safety and insurance related laws are BS put there by the established players that vary from place to place.
You should only pay out on pay-per-click, and even then, the payout should be largely affected by how long that user stayed after clicking an ad, whether they bought anything, etc.
Under a Lochean earned income theory of value (i.e. you should get paid for what you earn), paying an advertiser based on how successful you are at *retaining* customers sent your way seems wrong in most cases. The advertiser is then earning or not earning money based on how good of a job *you* are doing at retaining customers, rather than based on how good of a job *they* are doing at sending you customers.
There is one relevant component there still which is whether they are sending you the *right* customers, but usually we measure that by demographics and income rather than by the metric of how long they stay on your site, which is much more dependent on whether *you* are doing a good job retaining customers.
On the other hand, if you are determining what the advertiser should be paid based just on the free-market whatever-we-agree to idea, then you can pay them based on anything you both agree to, including the number of elephants who would fit in your living room. Most advertisers don't sell advertising based on how effective they are at getting customers to buy things, though--that's what salespeople do, and our society tends to make a significant distinction between sales and advertising.
Until it can seamlessly change the words I'm saying, as I'm saying them, into the receivers language without so much as a configuration nor without talking over the top of me, it is not the Star Trek Universal Translator.
Yeah. How dare a tech company be aspirational.
"Don't catch any bugs!" --Klingon border sentry to Enterprise