A) on the side of the freedom loving tin hats; B) the algorithmic claptrap of yet another NSA disinformation FUD campaign?
What I can say for certain.
Your post hails from the Chicago "the gun, the gun, the gun" school of analysis.
s/gun/NSA/g
Interesting. Somewhere in the bath water, reducing the scope of your security leak to (probably) the most advanced and (certainly) the best-funded surveillance agency on the planet went right out the window.
Here's the thing about the NSA. They've (literally) got billions of fish to fry.
Unless you're a very big fish indeed (or part and parcel of the sleeper cell with the mostest, of same) fixating on putative capabilities of the NSA (dispelling clarity on this matter is NSA's job #1) is narcissism porn of the boner apocalypse.
This entire media "bias" meme really separates those who allowed their schooling to interfere with their education, and those of us who didn't. What would unbiased media even look like? I don't know, but it would certainly be a state propaganda feed, because something can only be unbiased as measured against a ratified, societal norm.
For Act II, how about we stick our little strip of pink/blue bias-detection litmus paper into the baptismal bowl at Lakewood Church? Bias? Just imagine. Part of a giant, orchestrated, financially flush media empire? Absolutely. Harder to Google than the printed word? Who would have guessed?
There's a good sociological reason Wikipedia is largely authored by literate, STEM-positive, over-educated, middle-aged white males such as myself—many of us keep our Sunday morning calendars free and clear of conflicting obligations.
Journalism—the kind that operates outside the church—also, tilts toward a literate, STEM-positive, over-educated, professional cadre.
I once read a book by an IT consultant from way back. (Gerald Weinberg would have been on my desk at the time, but I'm not sure it was him.) As the story went, he was shooting the shit in the cubical of the middle manager who was likely to retain him, and noticed a huge, fancy chart on the wall documenting the weekly software defect rate. Seeing an in, his mouth shot out "looks like you have a problem here with software quality".
Already steaming, the middle manager shot right back, "what the fuck do you mean?" and proceeded to explain that the chart was just one artefact of an industry-leading quality management program that actually bothered to meticulously self-assess, which was almost unheard of in its time. The consultant had been brought in to forestall future pain, rather than medicate human folly. Lesson learned: think before you assume that smoke means unmanaged fire.
Journalism self assesses, bias purportedly found (by an otherwise unloved wolf-calling sub-population whose standard of hard thinking is managing to distinguish red from blue along a single axis).
Wikipedia self assesses, huge pockets of white male nerds discovered.
The church self assesses, oh noes we've got a few here who haven't swallowed the catechism lock, stock, and barrel; we should redouble our efforts.
Hmmm, different agendas.
At the end of the day, bias is mainly found in the organizations leading the curve in self-assessment (not hard to do, as this is so rarely done at all).
Cell phones are entirely new in the past generation, but, there has been no uptick, overall, in distracted driving deaths, certainly not like you would expect if they were an actual cause and not simply a new preferred choice for distraction.
Someone who wasn't distracted by their own fatuous logic would expected the road fatality rate to decrease on a VMT basis due to ongoing improvements in vehicle safety, road design, trauma surgery, and ongoing public education efforts.
I don't think that Clinton should challenge the election results, because even if the electronic voting machines were manipulated in Trump's favor, it's still clear that the voters were split basically down the middle so picking the wrong narrow-margin winner isn't a significant failure of democracy.
Of course, it's not like the state actors in control of the voting machines would tilt the electoral college outcome while deliberately conceding the popular vote so as to encourage this kind of mind-blowing tea leaf reading of manipulated data.
If the electronic vote was systematically manipulated no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the "apparent" outcome by anyone who values the integrity of the future process.
Man, the tally is either as correct as historical norms allow, or it isn't. Sheep wearing sunshades not required.
A failed commission at that: TI dropped out early, and Intel got theirs to work, but with a chip that came in late, and slower than Datapoint's 100-ish chip TTL design
That's an extremely loaded definition of "failure".
Order-of-magnitude integration density improvement using a new and relatively unproven technology—with one foot now securely fastened on Gordon Moore's neck-breaking turbo-lift.
Nevertheless, I'm sure some impatient PHB with his neck in the traditional delivery noose managed to turn chicken Cordon Bleu into a chicken-shit sob story (to lay on for effect the opposite spin treatment).
She lost because she promised absolutely nothing other than to be not Donald Trump.
She promised to be someone with three decades of experience in Washington, someone with strong financial and political ties to Wall St. who didn't tweet weird xenophobic shit at all hours of the day and night.
Blind hope that your choice of operating system is safe is the worst form of security. From the article:
When you deliberately choose and operating system so inconvenient by default that it's not even part of the mainstream conversation, it's hardly blind hope.
I have an LG G2 phone that can share its mobile internet via USB tethering. FreeBSD 9.3 recognizes it, but does not automatically obtain an IP address via DHCP and set it to the default route when I enable USB tethering on my device. Is there any way to do that? Just like under Windows.
I'm guessing, on the basis of that final sentence, he hadn't been bumping along on the BSD anti-bandwagon for very long.
Convenience, the simple recipe: * mise en place: read everything Bruce Tognazzini ever wrote, back in the era where Apple still provided some modicum of external justification for random UI tweak of the randomly selected mountain * blend into one long, hard night of inspired coding * activate brew with one generous Pandora's box jigger of "assume trust" * ladle up hot, attractive mess * serve steaming
I didn't comment until she started bragging about it and using it to promote her book. So apparently she thinks it is my business and yours.
I've always thought there should be a survivors group for those who never fully recovered from the AOL promotional CD plague of the dotcom era Global Insanity.
Until I see a shiny CD polluting my doorstep against my wishes, I'll take the position she's offering up her story as one insignificant trifle among billions available to consumers everywhere in a free world.
First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.
Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.
After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes; his son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.
Now I don't know about others, but I'm having trouble finding anything in there that doesn't strike me as entirely modern—except for Edward I following in the footsteps of his father Henry (for a while we had largely fixed that problem, but then we brought the eternal water-powered millstone of aristocracy back to America by terminating estate tax; the new Edward is a trust-fund baby, stemming from a long line of trust fund babies—stretching as far back as the eye can see—but this has yet to come to fruition as we're presently but a half a generation into the inevitable upshot, so I'm not redefining "modern" just yet).
But obviously I cherry picked that example (plus I cheated by 200 years), so let's spin again.
The invention of gunpowder is usually attributed to experimentation in Chinese alchemy by Taoists in the pursuit of immortality, and is popularly listed as one of the "Four Great Inventions" of China. It was invented during the late Tang dynasty (9th century) but the earliest record of a written formula appeared in the Song dynasty (11th century).
That pretty much allows one to build a modern rifle, supposing you have steel.
The Chinese of the Warring States period (403–221 BC) had quench-hardened steel, while Chinese of the Han dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) created steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining an ultimate product of a carbon-intermediate steel by the 1st century AD.
Heron of Alexandria (c. 10 AD–c. 70 AD) was a Greek mathematician and engineer who was active in his native city of Alexandria, Roman Egypt. He is considered the greatest experimenter of antiquity and his work is representative of the Hellenistic scientific tradition.
Heron published a well recognized description of a steam-powered device called an aeolipile (sometimes called a "Heron engine"). Among his most famous inventions was a windwheel, constituting the earliest instance of wind harnessing on land. He is said to have been a follower of the atomists. Some of his ideas were derived from the works of Ctesibius.
also you can get a freshly thawed donut that was made over 3,000 km away
This is only true since they eff-d themselves over.
Tim's used to be a nice place to stop on a road trip for a cheap sandwich and a passable cup of coffee. The coffee wasn't that much worse than Starbucks (unless Starbucks had succeeded in programming your taste buds to expect a severe over-roast).
I live in Victoria, B.C. and we've had a pretty darn good microbrew and microroast scenes for a long time, for anyone who cared to seek them out.
The revival of craft brewing dates from the early 1980s, according to Ian Coutts, in his book Brew North: How Canadians Made Beer and Beer Made Canada... the factors included... the revival of smaller brewers in the United States beginning with Anchor Brewing in 1965, the 1981 deregulation of beer prices in British Columbia by minister Peter Hyndman and the resulting price hikes by the incumbents.
In June 1982, the Horseshoe Bay Brewery in West Vancouver opened, creating one of Canada's first microbreweries.
Spinnakers and Vancouver Island Brewery opened in 1984, and Swans, historically a grain house, started serving beer in 1989.
For three decades now, Victoria has had a passable beer scene (the diversity really picked up when Phillips opened in 2001 and it's been going strong ever since). As for the rest of Canada, I don't know whether you're speaking on behalf of some putatively unsexy place like Port Alberni, or Kenora, or Moncton, but the future arrived here long ago.
On the subject of coffee, I've been mostly making pour-over for the past several years, and I get a fine cup when I purchase premium beans. Because of my sleep issues, I'm now making my coffees very tiny compared to days of yore, which is difficult to do with a press. Pour-over emphasizes the complexity of the acid notes (in premium, single-origin coffee, the acid notes are the main event) with, yes, some loss of body. In cheap coffee, the acid notes are a horror show so people get the wrong idea.
The main key to brewing success is that the grind size must follow from the flow rate of your mechanism. Each of my different drip systems requires a different grind size to balance extraction and nuance, and this also changes by the amount of grounds brewed.
Back when I was still using my press, I had many varietals where I would alternate between drip and press, because each technique brought out something different (and equally wonderful).
I will confess that pour-over is far from fire-and-forget. However long you wish to brew your press, it's generally a pretty brainless operation (it is possible to make press complicated to good effect, but I've ever met two people I'd trust to make this assessment, and they brewed hundreds of trial batches, each one recorded down to the hour, second, and degree).
Hour=when roasted Second=water contact time Degree=water temperature
This new guy doesn't sound like he's adding a thing at all over the expensive TDS meters I've never used.
Once you get the contact time, water temperature, and TDS right, you're 90% of the way there. Next step is fussing over the mineral content, oxygenation level, and purity of your brew water. Beyond that point, additional fussiness might add a decimal point to your coffee enjoyment.
So that's your photo carefully taken in one direction.
But surely you've caught wind of the problem of false equivalency, where the second camera angle ends up being some convenient, attention-grabbing, shit-throwing monkey, who is only in it for the publicity, and consumes his dreary dinner only with relish for the opportunities it will soon create. if (p != NULL)
publish (*p + *q);
"Should" is a word that indicates you might have lost the argument. Telling someone how to act "because" is not compelling.
"Neither should you" is a fairly standard rhetorical device. It's hardly top drawer, but effective enough when one's opponent insists on continuing childish behaviour.
As with all things, it's not a matter of a simple formula, but whether the shoe fits. (Some people think that insistence on simple formulas falls under the rubric of continuing with childish behaviour.)
Our side now has to accept that Trump won. Your side now has to accept that Clinton is no longer the frame of reference. If Trump behaves like an ass in any dimension, he's entirely in his own frame now.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
As of 11/9, that covers continuing to mention Hillary's issues.
One more thing—perhaps it hardly needs to be said—but we are presently witnessing a bullshit bumper crop of epic proportions. There are plenty of holes to go around.
Back on the Intel front, I've also watched good ship Intel flirt with the dark side, over and over again, in its long history.
Intel dearly wants the memory chip business to somehow magically resemble the CPU business, the only business model Intel knows how to successfully defend. Over and over, they try to make the memory industry (naturally a commodity model) resemble the CPU model (naturally a volume-driven, winner-takes-all boutique).
Rambus, rest in hell.
The immense fidelious charm that Intel has enacted around 3D XPoint—the name alone kills kittens—suggests they are in full flirtation once again. Should that come to pass, should this turns into the bullshit mountain it shows every potential of becoming (if not yet the six and seven and eight craps rolls), let me just say my preliminary files are already NetBursting at the seams.
First, my brain knows how to spell "corral" even if my fingers betray me.
Second, while I was making fun of victory by incessant repetition (by some miracle, this continues to be a major theme of modern society) I didn't exactly sign up to while my life away posting on Slashdot until end times.
Back in the early nineties, I found myself in a place where I really enjoyed reading about microarchitectures. It's a bit of futurology, combined with the giant challenge of bullshit removal, combined with incredible superpowers society had only recently failed to even suspect.
The study of microarchitecture became my pet project for a serious, long-term life goal: all the better to hone and calibrate my bullshit removal powers. I had a hunch I'd find myself desiring of super powers in this particular Defense Against the Dark Arts at some future juncture. Voldemorts come in all shapes and sizes. Along the way, it helps to practice on the small ones. (Hence the prescient Dumbledore sits idly by, mostly helping no one, in the most dangerous educational cat and mouse game ever devised.)
Now, a charismatic public figure like Jobs can spread his bullshit times a million over compared to Joe Random Geek such as myself. One against one, pushing back looks completely ridiculous. That said, at the end of the day, there are more of us than there are of him, and people like him, c.f. Linux v. Bill Gates.
I once read a book on Texas Hold'em which advised the reader to pick one pair of favorite hole cards (say suited J-10) and really learn to play the wheels off your signature hole.
Well, by this point I had already chosen this one particular thing that Jobs lied about as my signature hole. I knew the history inside out (that portion that hasn't slipped my aging mind), I never find it boring to repeat myself on this topic, and one can never challenge bullshit revisionist history often enough in this short life. It's a group obligation if we wish to live in a sane society.
To all you young people out there: pick some pinnacle of bullshit in your neck of the woods, make it your chosen hole, and then pound on your chosen hole tirelessly wherever it shows its head, for all your living days.
Now we see the true genius of Jobs repeating this over and over again long ago when it definitely wasn't true. This was back in the "never Intel" phase of Job's reality distortion field.
It would be slightly closer to the truth to say that Intel CPUs have "always" been faster. There were exceptions from high-end competitors (not many from the Motorola camp), and a short appearance by AMD in the cat bird seat with their Opteron, before the black curtain drop of all time at the introduction of Intel's first CoreDuo.
RISC cores often managed to steal a march over Intel on peak sustained instruction issue width / instruction retirement width. Typically in RISC you would see 4-wide issue and retirement with shallow OoO (out of order), against 3-wide for Intel with deep OoO. RISC was also first to adopt fused multiply-add, which really showed up in select Photoshop filters (boy did Jobs ever notice that peak on that graph). This was before these algorithms were delegated to the GPU at orders of magnitude speed increase.
The thing about OoO is that it extends full stack: from CPU, through memory cache, SMP coherence, right through to the memory bus protocol (split transactions, with a deep tag queue, pretty please).
Intel wasn't trying to beat Apple on graphics professional benchmarks at this point in their history. They were trying to gain an entry point into the server room, which lead to an entry point into the cloud, which lead to damn near ownership of the entire cloud space. What a horrible plan. Meanwhile, back at the graphics professional hipster coral, the best x86 system design could still hang with PowerPC, and typically prevail on the most complex graphics workflows.
Deep OoO is hard, and vastly more important to server workloads than 4-wide peak issue and retirement. Sorry, Photoshop, some filters need not apply. All the hardest Photoshop stuff was destined to wind up on the GPU anyway, excluding mainly those parts were memory agility was a key performance attribute.
Intel's server-workload memory agility pretty much kicked the pants off of everything else, all the time. The one exception that I'm aware of it when the Opteron beat Intel by a generation to the on-chip DRAM controller. This, combined with a snappy SMP fabric for 2 and 4 sockets, caused Intel to really see the light for a couple of tense years.
The only time Motorola got anywhere near top dog status was their early 4-wide FMA designs, which only held up for predictable patterns of memory access. Photoshop was a dream marriage during this era of PowerPC's singular design win.
At this point, I've kind of won this debate, because Jobs is dead, and I'm not. He lapped me a hundred times in repeating his side of the story in the early days, but time is on my side, and god willing, I should surpass him yet.
Of course the causation runs in both directions here.
It's likely that poor sleep leads to poorer function; it's likely that poorer function leads to stress, anxiety, and more screen time; and its likely that this in turns contributes to poor sleep. All three "likelies" have support within the existing literature.
Which doesn't stop a likely threesome from coming out upside down.
The next study requires an even larger budget. But first, you're probably going to do a cheap study to at least suggest that the two effects move in the same direction, once any kind of measurement enters the room.
Doh! they're so stupid for looking before they leap.
Even papers like WAPO, NYT, USAToday, etc had teams dedicated to go after Trump because they didn't like him.
Correlation or causation?
If a news organization has to hire an entire team just to keep track of how many lies a presidential candidate tells every damn day, I'm sure it's not going to be with love in their hearts. Journalists—most of them—go into journalism because they have a bit of a thing for hanging out on the high—and relatively dry—bullshit sandbar (aka objectivity) of the giant floating bullshit swamp (aka demagogic relativism).
Of course, you'll say, objectivity isn't pure and natural and motherhood and apple pie. Of course, I'll reply, how brave of you to swim at the other end of the pool, the one with no filtration system whatsoever.
In almost every profession, most people self-select for the profession's natural ideals. Then the cynical and corrupt rise to the top, and you get the typical mixed bag. If there's an institution, there's corruption of the institution.
People love to use the "purity" frame to imply that corruption of the part (usually the part with the most power) implies corruption of the entire organism. But it's actually more like a tumour that spares most of the healthy flesh. A little bit of corruption at the top of a big and otherwise healthy organism goes a long way. Corruption all the way down turns a military into a brigade of pirates. I see this story entirely the other way around. The journalistic standards that Trump inflamed have existed for hundreds of years.
Then Trump comes along and decides to be—90% of the time—precisely the kind of demographic ass they could be counted on to despise (at pretty much any point in time over the last two centuries, with somewhat of a valley prior to the two great wars, and somewhat of a tall and broad plateau thereafter; those two incredibly-costly ethical booster shots, paid for in blood, now diminished and gone from the west).
So, no. Nobody was waiting around for Trump to exist before they decided to hate what he chooses to represent (for entirely self-serving ends, so far as anyone familiar enough with leopards to miss part of their arm has yet to discern).
Here's an idea. Let's make midnight midnight always. I mean, for the first time since history, we have the technology.
Only the thing is, it isn't midnight, precisely, that humans care about. It's dawn, or to be more precise: waking up, at break of.
If the average place averages twelve hours each of sun up and sun down over the course of a year, and midnight were generally in the middle of the night, we can infer that dawn, generally, would arrive circa 06:00. (Note that because of earth's orbital elipticity, the southern hemisphere has shorter, hotter summers, and the twelve hour thing doesn't entirely hold up).
So let's make 06:00 the crack of sun up everywhere, all the time, not coarsely chunked into "zones", but right down to the minute. For this calculation, we'll simplify the planet's shape as a smooth oblate spheroid.
People who move about—at car scale—will need to get used to having two frames of reference. One will be the frame of reference of the physical location of his/her (putative) place of sleep. This will count as "home", even for those few where "home" is the exception that proves the rule (that being my least favourite expression of all time, but what the hell).
Then you will need to know the time at your actual geographic location. At the equator, a point on the surface of the earth has a rotational velocity component of 1,675 km/hour. In a car, a fast trip might average 100 km/hour. For every hour one drives due east or due west (when near the equator) you can expect a time adjustment at your destination of +/- 4 minutes per hour of driving time (for getting the sign right, it helps to know which direction you were going). For air travel, the correction is much larger, but we're pretty much screwed on time with air travel, anyway.
Further away from the equator, the correction term becomes larger, but not by too much within +/- 55 degrees, which accounts for pretty much everybody. Anyway, it hardly matters. Your phone knows. Use the phone, dumbbell.
(I can't link the actual source, it appears, because of a random act of self-sabotage.)
Back to air travel, I don't think we wants planes and trains operating on pesky human-compatible geographical dawn, so we'll probably want to include a TAI-based standard, as well, for that purpose. This leads to the nasty problem of choosing a distinguished point over what is, approximately, a pesky rotational symmetry (one that tends to plague large, gravitational bodies).
Looking at that link above with the population density by lat/long, we see a nice, impartial dip around 60 degrees E between the two largest population masses: Europe/Africa and Asia. (Clearly the Americas take the role of the down-underish "back side" in this calculation.)
Your choices here are the round number 60 degrees E, or the nearest non-arbitrary geographical reference point, of which there are approximately three. By eyeball, the minimum dip is circa 64 degrees E (estimating one-eighth of a thirty degree division). Consulting List of cities by longitude, and Google maps, the obvious choices are these (listed, by convention, from west to east):
* Yekaterinburg (60o35'E) * Kandahar (65o43'E) * British Indian Ocean Territory, smallest silly island of (circa 72oE)
Yekaterinburg is the listed city closest to the round number 60, plus it would tweak Putin something fierce (while still allowing him to spin this internally, quite hilariously, as evidence of renewed Russian global ascendancy).
Kandahar is closest to the actual dip. Bonus: everyone who watches CNN knows where it is ("over there" counts as an acceptable answer).
BIOT is a nice fillip to the British—in truth, the British have feelings, too—and extricates the designated point
Greenstein and his co-author Feng Zhu categorized each article as "blue" or "red." Drawing from research in political science, they identified terms that are idiosyncratic to each party. For instance, political scientists have identified that Democrats were more likely to use phrases such as "war in Iraq," "civil rights," and "trade deficit," while Republicans used phrases such as "economic growth," "illegal immigration," and "border security." ... Today, Wikipedia is less overtly blue or red and instead looks purple with "a slight blue leaning to it," says Greenstein.
The methodology employed is severely purple blind. On the other hand, I bet it's pretty good at distinguishing a Tribble on diazepam from a rabid Tasmanian devil.
(Still no Unicode quote characters? Overlord fail.)
Do your domestic developers have equity? If not, they don't have any more incentive to care about your business than your contracting partner.
Adam Smith wrote two books. The Wealth of Nations presents and discusses the reductive version of incentive that apparently you know and love. The other was The Theory of Moral Sentiments which presents and discusses non-reductive forms of incentive, which apparently you've never heard of, and have no great wish to consider.
Although The Wealth of Nations is widely regarded as Smith's most influential work, it is believed that Smith himself considered The Theory of Moral Sentiments to be a superior work.
1. learn and burnish the word "incentive" 2. drag every conversation into the mud 3. lather, rinse, repeat
After enough repetitions, "incentive" is honed to a fine point.
In the work, Smith critically examines the moral thinking of his time, and suggests that conscience arises from dynamic and interactive social relationships through which people seek "mutual sympathy of sentiments."
To a certain extent there's a selection bias at play here. Those of us who care about "dynamic and interactive social relationships" tend to band together in camp Sentiment Too, leaving extreme examples of reductive incentive to battle things out—nature red in tooth and claw—off yonder in camp Nothing But Wealth.
Where intangibles matter, outsourcing is a slow process. Where intangibles matter little, outsourcing is a wolf at the door.
Without a doubt, we'll still be debugging our 20th century climate models when the clock strikes 2200.
Sometime in the 23rd century, there will be a Holospace Science-Officer conference (conducted through a Holoreality subspace linkup) to thrash out a few lingering points of disagreement—adjust six inches here, six inches there and we're all good.
If you're not willing to invest your own time and money in it, why should anyone else?
Sure sounds like you've ever invested ten minutes in framing a less vapid question.
Most young scientists have already invested twenty years in their education (the best of their youth), uprooted themselves multiple times in the process (this places no strain on your love life whatsoever), accumulated a huge heap of student debt, and their future career prospects hang the balance. So, absolutely, the problem here is pie-eyed intellectuals with not enough skin in the game.
Also, some scientific ideas are more complex than discovering a new and better way to fold a paper airplane. You probably require equipment, a place to work, and willing collaborators whose narrow little specializations differ from your own.
Here's the bummer. Betcha my answer won't stop you from hauling that vapid question out again at the next opportunity. Is has the smell of a mouldy oldie, one that hasn't seen any sunlight in the last fifty years.
But wait... just received a fax from Michael Faraday. Let's see here, Michael says to "lay off", because Fragnatious has a good point.
Well, we can stop that... I'm faxing him back the complete LIGO specifications and physical blueprint. Probably bankrupt the poor man on thermal paper alone. No problem. He's a resourceful bastard—if half of what comes down to us is true, he can probably complete his investigations in debtors prison just fine.
People need to realize that the effects of global warming are at this point unstoppable.
I know horses can count to three and do simple arithmetic, but to bolt the barn at the very stroke of four hundred greatly surpasses my prior estimation of equine quantitative analysis.
"Storm's-a-brewin'," says the white horse, from behind the thoroughly bolted barn door.
"North of four hundred! Wouldn't be caught dead in that climate," says the black horse, giving the topmost bolt a final check with his teeth.
"Not with those bloody superstitious bipeds completely giving up on proactive management, just because they burst through the first screw-up milestone still in the same old business-as-usual blind gallop," agrees the chestnut.
"Typical glue-obsessed skin-pickling apes," agrees the white horse. "I'm waiting this out from in here."
"Agreed," says the black horse. "Unless. Duty. Summons."
"That creeps me out," says the white horse, moving another step away. "How will you know?"
"Stormy, moonless nights, black cats, one-eyed bats—all the assorted omens of end times and human fate," says the chestnut.
"Stop kidding around," says the black horse. "Salty white filigrees on the cement floor will spell things out all too clearly."
"Good to know we don't have to stand around counting bats eyes," says the white horse. "That would have sucked."
"Beats what the humans can manage," says the chestnut.
Here the white horse lets fly with a giant fart of approval.
"Hey, stop that, meth breath!" says the chestnut.
"Too late!" says the white horse, "better out than in."
"Wrong," says the black horse. "Better in than out," continues the black horse, after checking the middle bolt with his teeth one last time.
Slashdot Mirror
And you would be:
A) on the side of the freedom loving tin hats;
B) the algorithmic claptrap of yet another NSA disinformation FUD campaign?
What I can say for certain.
Your post hails from the Chicago "the gun, the gun, the gun" school of analysis.
s/gun/NSA/g
Interesting. Somewhere in the bath water, reducing the scope of your security leak to (probably) the most advanced and (certainly) the best-funded surveillance agency on the planet went right out the window.
Here's the thing about the NSA. They've (literally) got billions of fish to fry.
Unless you're a very big fish indeed (or part and parcel of the sleeper cell with the mostest, of same) fixating on putative capabilities of the NSA (dispelling clarity on this matter is NSA's job #1) is narcissism porn of the boner apocalypse.
This entire media "bias" meme really separates those who allowed their schooling to interfere with their education, and those of us who didn't. What would unbiased media even look like? I don't know, but it would certainly be a state propaganda feed, because something can only be unbiased as measured against a ratified, societal norm.
For Act II, how about we stick our little strip of pink/blue bias-detection litmus paper into the baptismal bowl at Lakewood Church? Bias? Just imagine. Part of a giant, orchestrated, financially flush media empire? Absolutely. Harder to Google than the printed word? Who would have guessed?
There's a good sociological reason Wikipedia is largely authored by literate, STEM-positive, over-educated, middle-aged white males such as myself—many of us keep our Sunday morning calendars free and clear of conflicting obligations.
Journalism—the kind that operates outside the church—also, tilts toward a literate, STEM-positive, over-educated, professional cadre.
I once read a book by an IT consultant from way back. (Gerald Weinberg would have been on my desk at the time, but I'm not sure it was him.) As the story went, he was shooting the shit in the cubical of the middle manager who was likely to retain him, and noticed a huge, fancy chart on the wall documenting the weekly software defect rate. Seeing an in, his mouth shot out "looks like you have a problem here with software quality".
Already steaming, the middle manager shot right back, "what the fuck do you mean?" and proceeded to explain that the chart was just one artefact of an industry-leading quality management program that actually bothered to meticulously self-assess, which was almost unheard of in its time. The consultant had been brought in to forestall future pain, rather than medicate human folly. Lesson learned: think before you assume that smoke means unmanaged fire.
Journalism self assesses, bias purportedly found (by an otherwise unloved wolf-calling sub-population whose standard of hard thinking is managing to distinguish red from blue along a single axis).
Wikipedia self assesses, huge pockets of white male nerds discovered.
The church self assesses, oh noes we've got a few here who haven't swallowed the catechism lock, stock, and barrel; we should redouble our efforts.
Hmmm, different agendas.
At the end of the day, bias is mainly found in the organizations leading the curve in self-assessment (not hard to do, as this is so rarely done at all).
Someone who wasn't distracted by their own fatuous logic would expected the road fatality rate to decrease on a VMT basis due to ongoing improvements in vehicle safety, road design, trauma surgery, and ongoing public education efforts.
I'd parse List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year for you, but I no longer trust the official U.S. population figures.
Friday 24 July 2015 interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe.
(It kind of makes me wonder how many of those 34 or 38 or 42 million people presently realize they're living in America on borrowed time.)
Of course, it's not like the state actors in control of the voting machines would tilt the electoral college outcome while deliberately conceding the popular vote so as to encourage this kind of mind-blowing tea leaf reading of manipulated data.
If the electronic vote was systematically manipulated no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the "apparent" outcome by anyone who values the integrity of the future process.
Man, the tally is either as correct as historical norms allow, or it isn't. Sheep wearing sunshades not required.
That's an extremely loaded definition of "failure".
Order-of-magnitude integration density improvement using a new and relatively unproven technology—with one foot now securely fastened on Gordon Moore's neck-breaking turbo-lift.
Nevertheless, I'm sure some impatient PHB with his neck in the traditional delivery noose managed to turn chicken Cordon Bleu into a chicken-shit sob story (to lay on for effect the opposite spin treatment).
She promised to be someone with three decades of experience in Washington, someone with strong financial and political ties to Wall St. who didn't tweet weird xenophobic shit at all hours of the day and night.
That's one disqualification.
Whereas with Donald, I quite lost track.
When you deliberately choose and operating system so inconvenient by default that it's not even part of the mainstream conversation, it's hardly blind hope.
USB Tethering: How to auto-configure?
I'm guessing, on the basis of that final sentence, he hadn't been bumping along on the BSD anti-bandwagon for very long.
Convenience, the simple recipe:
* mise en place: read everything Bruce Tognazzini ever wrote, back in the era where Apple still provided some modicum of external justification for random UI tweak of the randomly selected mountain
* blend into one long, hard night of inspired coding
* activate brew with one generous Pandora's box jigger of "assume trust"
* ladle up hot, attractive mess
* serve steaming
I've always thought there should be a survivors group for those who never fully recovered from the AOL promotional CD plague of the dotcom era Global Insanity.
Until I see a shiny CD polluting my doorstep against my wishes, I'll take the position she's offering up her story as one insignificant trifle among billions available to consumers everywhere in a free world.
Shorthand: you're an ass.
That's a rather trite definition of "unrecognizable". Let's take a look at a serviceable "one thousand year's ago" cultural landmark.
Magna Carta
Now I don't know about others, but I'm having trouble finding anything in there that doesn't strike me as entirely modern—except for Edward I following in the footsteps of his father Henry (for a while we had largely fixed that problem, but then we brought the eternal water-powered millstone of aristocracy back to America by terminating estate tax; the new Edward is a trust-fund baby, stemming from a long line of trust fund babies—stretching as far back as the eye can see—but this has yet to come to fruition as we're presently but a half a generation into the inevitable upshot, so I'm not redefining "modern" just yet).
But obviously I cherry picked that example (plus I cheated by 200 years), so let's spin again.
History of gunpowder
That pretty much allows one to build a modern rifle, supposing you have steel.
Steel
Surely I'm still cheating, let's try again.
Hero of Alexandria
This is only true since they eff-d themselves over.
Tim's used to be a nice place to stop on a road trip for a cheap sandwich and a passable cup of coffee. The coffee wasn't that much worse than Starbucks (unless Starbucks had succeeded in programming your taste buds to expect a severe over-roast).
I live in Victoria, B.C. and we've had a pretty darn good microbrew and microroast scenes for a long time, for anyone who cared to seek them out.
Beer in Canada
Victoria's Microbrewery Culture
For three decades now, Victoria has had a passable beer scene (the diversity really picked up when Phillips opened in 2001 and it's been going strong ever since). As for the rest of Canada, I don't know whether you're speaking on behalf of some putatively unsexy place like Port Alberni, or Kenora, or Moncton, but the future arrived here long ago.
On the subject of coffee, I've been mostly making pour-over for the past several years, and I get a fine cup when I purchase premium beans. Because of my sleep issues, I'm now making my coffees very tiny compared to days of yore, which is difficult to do with a press. Pour-over emphasizes the complexity of the acid notes (in premium, single-origin coffee, the acid notes are the main event) with, yes, some loss of body. In cheap coffee, the acid notes are a horror show so people get the wrong idea.
The main key to brewing success is that the grind size must follow from the flow rate of your mechanism. Each of my different drip systems requires a different grind size to balance extraction and nuance, and this also changes by the amount of grounds brewed.
Back when I was still using my press, I had many varietals where I would alternate between drip and press, because each technique brought out something different (and equally wonderful).
I will confess that pour-over is far from fire-and-forget. However long you wish to brew your press, it's generally a pretty brainless operation (it is possible to make press complicated to good effect, but I've ever met two people I'd trust to make this assessment, and they brewed hundreds of trial batches, each one recorded down to the hour, second, and degree).
Hour=when roasted
Second=water contact time
Degree=water temperature
This new guy doesn't sound like he's adding a thing at all over the expensive TDS meters I've never used.
Once you get the contact time, water temperature, and TDS right, you're 90% of the way there. Next step is fussing over the mineral content, oxygenation level, and purity of your brew water. Beyond that point, additional fussiness might add a decimal point to your coffee enjoyment.
If you really squeeze hard and think of Narnia.
So that's your photo carefully taken in one direction.
But surely you've caught wind of the problem of false equivalency, where the second camera angle ends up being some convenient, attention-grabbing, shit-throwing monkey, who is only in it for the publicity, and consumes his dreary dinner only with relish for the opportunities it will soon create.
if (p != NULL)
publish (*p + *q);
What could possibly go wrong?
"Neither should you" is a fairly standard rhetorical device. It's hardly top drawer, but effective enough when one's opponent insists on continuing childish behaviour.
As with all things, it's not a matter of a simple formula, but whether the shoe fits. (Some people think that insistence on simple formulas falls under the rubric of continuing with childish behaviour.)
Our side now has to accept that Trump won. Your side now has to accept that Clinton is no longer the frame of reference. If Trump behaves like an ass in any dimension, he's entirely in his own frame now.
As of 11/9, that covers continuing to mention Hillary's issues.
One more thing—perhaps it hardly needs to be said—but we are presently witnessing a bullshit bumper crop of epic proportions. There are plenty of holes to go around.
Back on the Intel front, I've also watched good ship Intel flirt with the dark side, over and over again, in its long history.
Intel dearly wants the memory chip business to somehow magically resemble the CPU business, the only business model Intel knows how to successfully defend. Over and over, they try to make the memory industry (naturally a commodity model) resemble the CPU model (naturally a volume-driven, winner-takes-all boutique).
Rambus, rest in hell.
The immense fidelious charm that Intel has enacted around 3D XPoint—the name alone kills kittens—suggests they are in full flirtation once again. Should that come to pass, should this turns into the bullshit mountain it shows every potential of becoming (if not yet the six and seven and eight craps rolls), let me just say my preliminary files are already NetBursting at the seams.
Microarchitecture Wars, volume II.
Bring it on.
I want to add something more.
First, my brain knows how to spell "corral" even if my fingers betray me.
Second, while I was making fun of victory by incessant repetition (by some miracle, this continues to be a major theme of modern society) I didn't exactly sign up to while my life away posting on Slashdot until end times.
Back in the early nineties, I found myself in a place where I really enjoyed reading about microarchitectures. It's a bit of futurology, combined with the giant challenge of bullshit removal, combined with incredible superpowers society had only recently failed to even suspect.
The study of microarchitecture became my pet project for a serious, long-term life goal: all the better to hone and calibrate my bullshit removal powers. I had a hunch I'd find myself desiring of super powers in this particular Defense Against the Dark Arts at some future juncture. Voldemorts come in all shapes and sizes. Along the way, it helps to practice on the small ones. (Hence the prescient Dumbledore sits idly by, mostly helping no one, in the most dangerous educational cat and mouse game ever devised.)
Now, a charismatic public figure like Jobs can spread his bullshit times a million over compared to Joe Random Geek such as myself. One against one, pushing back looks completely ridiculous. That said, at the end of the day, there are more of us than there are of him, and people like him, c.f. Linux v. Bill Gates.
I once read a book on Texas Hold'em which advised the reader to pick one pair of favorite hole cards (say suited J-10) and really learn to play the wheels off your signature hole.
Well, by this point I had already chosen this one particular thing that Jobs lied about as my signature hole. I knew the history inside out (that portion that hasn't slipped my aging mind), I never find it boring to repeat myself on this topic, and one can never challenge bullshit revisionist history often enough in this short life. It's a group obligation if we wish to live in a sane society.
To all you young people out there: pick some pinnacle of bullshit in your neck of the woods, make it your chosen hole, and then pound on your chosen hole tirelessly wherever it shows its head, for all your living days.
By this method, we can still win.
Now we see the true genius of Jobs repeating this over and over again long ago when it definitely wasn't true. This was back in the "never Intel" phase of Job's reality distortion field.
It would be slightly closer to the truth to say that Intel CPUs have "always" been faster. There were exceptions from high-end competitors (not many from the Motorola camp), and a short appearance by AMD in the cat bird seat with their Opteron, before the black curtain drop of all time at the introduction of Intel's first CoreDuo.
RISC cores often managed to steal a march over Intel on peak sustained instruction issue width / instruction retirement width. Typically in RISC you would see 4-wide issue and retirement with shallow OoO (out of order), against 3-wide for Intel with deep OoO. RISC was also first to adopt fused multiply-add, which really showed up in select Photoshop filters (boy did Jobs ever notice that peak on that graph). This was before these algorithms were delegated to the GPU at orders of magnitude speed increase.
The thing about OoO is that it extends full stack: from CPU, through memory cache, SMP coherence, right through to the memory bus protocol (split transactions, with a deep tag queue, pretty please).
Intel wasn't trying to beat Apple on graphics professional benchmarks at this point in their history. They were trying to gain an entry point into the server room, which lead to an entry point into the cloud, which lead to damn near ownership of the entire cloud space. What a horrible plan. Meanwhile, back at the graphics professional hipster coral, the best x86 system design could still hang with PowerPC, and typically prevail on the most complex graphics workflows.
Deep OoO is hard, and vastly more important to server workloads than 4-wide peak issue and retirement. Sorry, Photoshop, some filters need not apply. All the hardest Photoshop stuff was destined to wind up on the GPU anyway, excluding mainly those parts were memory agility was a key performance attribute.
Intel's server-workload memory agility pretty much kicked the pants off of everything else, all the time. The one exception that I'm aware of it when the Opteron beat Intel by a generation to the on-chip DRAM controller. This, combined with a snappy SMP fabric for 2 and 4 sockets, caused Intel to really see the light for a couple of tense years.
The only time Motorola got anywhere near top dog status was their early 4-wide FMA designs, which only held up for predictable patterns of memory access. Photoshop was a dream marriage during this era of PowerPC's singular design win.
At this point, I've kind of won this debate, because Jobs is dead, and I'm not. He lapped me a hundred times in repeating his side of the story in the early days, but time is on my side, and god willing, I should surpass him yet.
Of course the causation runs in both directions here.
It's likely that poor sleep leads to poorer function; it's likely that poorer function leads to stress, anxiety, and more screen time; and its likely that this in turns contributes to poor sleep. All three "likelies" have support within the existing literature.
Which doesn't stop a likely threesome from coming out upside down.
The next study requires an even larger budget. But first, you're probably going to do a cheap study to at least suggest that the two effects move in the same direction, once any kind of measurement enters the room.
Doh! they're so stupid for looking before they leap.
Correlation or causation?
If a news organization has to hire an entire team just to keep track of how many lies a presidential candidate tells every damn day, I'm sure it's not going to be with love in their hearts. Journalists—most of them—go into journalism because they have a bit of a thing for hanging out on the high—and relatively dry—bullshit sandbar (aka objectivity) of the giant floating bullshit swamp (aka demagogic relativism).
Of course, you'll say, objectivity isn't pure and natural and motherhood and apple pie. Of course, I'll reply, how brave of you to swim at the other end of the pool, the one with no filtration system whatsoever.
In almost every profession, most people self-select for the profession's natural ideals. Then the cynical and corrupt rise to the top, and you get the typical mixed bag. If there's an institution, there's corruption of the institution.
People love to use the "purity" frame to imply that corruption of the part (usually the part with the most power) implies corruption of the entire organism. But it's actually more like a tumour that spares most of the healthy flesh. A little bit of corruption at the top of a big and otherwise healthy organism goes a long way. Corruption all the way down turns a military into a brigade of pirates. I see this story entirely the other way around. The journalistic standards that Trump inflamed have existed for hundreds of years.
Then Trump comes along and decides to be—90% of the time—precisely the kind of demographic ass they could be counted on to despise (at pretty much any point in time over the last two centuries, with somewhat of a valley prior to the two great wars, and somewhat of a tall and broad plateau thereafter; those two incredibly-costly ethical booster shots, paid for in blood, now diminished and gone from the west).
So, no. Nobody was waiting around for Trump to exist before they decided to hate what he chooses to represent (for entirely self-serving ends, so far as anyone familiar enough with leopards to miss part of their arm has yet to discern).
Here's an idea. Let's make midnight midnight always. I mean, for the first time since history, we have the technology.
Only the thing is, it isn't midnight, precisely, that humans care about. It's dawn, or to be more precise: waking up, at break of.
If the average place averages twelve hours each of sun up and sun down over the course of a year, and midnight were generally in the middle of the night, we can infer that dawn, generally, would arrive circa 06:00. (Note that because of earth's orbital elipticity, the southern hemisphere has shorter, hotter summers, and the twelve hour thing doesn't entirely hold up).
So let's make 06:00 the crack of sun up everywhere, all the time, not coarsely chunked into "zones", but right down to the minute. For this calculation, we'll simplify the planet's shape as a smooth oblate spheroid.
People who move about—at car scale—will need to get used to having two frames of reference. One will be the frame of reference of the physical location of his/her (putative) place of sleep. This will count as "home", even for those few where "home" is the exception that proves the rule (that being my least favourite expression of all time, but what the hell).
Then you will need to know the time at your actual geographic location. At the equator, a point on the surface of the earth has a rotational velocity component of 1,675 km/hour. In a car, a fast trip might average 100 km/hour. For every hour one drives due east or due west (when near the equator) you can expect a time adjustment at your destination of +/- 4 minutes per hour of driving time (for getting the sign right, it helps to know which direction you were going). For air travel, the correction is much larger, but we're pretty much screwed on time with air travel, anyway.
Further away from the equator, the correction term becomes larger, but not by too much within +/- 55 degrees, which accounts for pretty much everybody. Anyway, it hardly matters. Your phone knows. Use the phone, dumbbell.
The World's Population Mapped by Latitude and Longitude
(I can't link the actual source, it appears, because of a random act of self-sabotage.)
Back to air travel, I don't think we wants planes and trains operating on pesky human-compatible geographical dawn, so we'll probably want to include a TAI-based standard, as well, for that purpose. This leads to the nasty problem of choosing a distinguished point over what is, approximately, a pesky rotational symmetry (one that tends to plague large, gravitational bodies).
Looking at that link above with the population density by lat/long, we see a nice, impartial dip around 60 degrees E between the two largest population masses: Europe/Africa and Asia. (Clearly the Americas take the role of the down-underish "back side" in this calculation.)
Your choices here are the round number 60 degrees E, or the nearest non-arbitrary geographical reference point, of which there are approximately three. By eyeball, the minimum dip is circa 64 degrees E (estimating one-eighth of a thirty degree division). Consulting List of cities by longitude, and Google maps, the obvious choices are these (listed, by convention, from west to east):
* Yekaterinburg (60o35'E)
* Kandahar (65o43'E)
* British Indian Ocean Territory, smallest silly island of (circa 72oE)
Yekaterinburg is the listed city closest to the round number 60, plus it would tweak Putin something fierce (while still allowing him to spin this internally, quite hilariously, as evidence of renewed Russian global ascendancy).
Kandahar is closest to the actual dip. Bonus: everyone who watches CNN knows where it is ("over there" counts as an acceptable answer).
BIOT is a nice fillip to the British—in truth, the British have feelings, too—and extricates the designated point
The methodology employed is severely purple blind. On the other hand, I bet it's pretty good at distinguishing a Tribble on diazepam from a rabid Tasmanian devil.
(Still no Unicode quote characters? Overlord fail.)
Adam Smith wrote two books. The Wealth of Nations presents and discusses the reductive version of incentive that apparently you know and love. The other was The Theory of Moral Sentiments which presents and discusses non-reductive forms of incentive, which apparently you've never heard of, and have no great wish to consider.
1. learn and burnish the word "incentive"
2. drag every conversation into the mud
3. lather, rinse, repeat
After enough repetitions, "incentive" is honed to a fine point.
To a certain extent there's a selection bias at play here. Those of us who care about "dynamic and interactive social relationships" tend to band together in camp Sentiment Too, leaving extreme examples of reductive incentive to battle things out—nature red in tooth and claw—off yonder in camp Nothing But Wealth.
Where intangibles matter, outsourcing is a slow process. Where intangibles matter little, outsourcing is a wolf at the door.
Without a doubt, we'll still be debugging our 20th century climate models when the clock strikes 2200.
Sometime in the 23rd century, there will be a Holospace Science-Officer conference (conducted through a Holoreality subspace linkup) to thrash out a few lingering points of disagreement—adjust six inches here, six inches there and we're all good.
Thanks for the summary. Reminds me of old times ...
Sure sounds like you've ever invested ten minutes in framing a less vapid question.
Most young scientists have already invested twenty years in their education (the best of their youth), uprooted themselves multiple times in the process (this places no strain on your love life whatsoever), accumulated a huge heap of student debt, and their future career prospects hang the balance. So, absolutely, the problem here is pie-eyed intellectuals with not enough skin in the game.
Also, some scientific ideas are more complex than discovering a new and better way to fold a paper airplane. You probably require equipment, a place to work, and willing collaborators whose narrow little specializations differ from your own.
Here's the bummer. Betcha my answer won't stop you from hauling that vapid question out again at the next opportunity. Is has the smell of a mouldy oldie, one that hasn't seen any sunlight in the last fifty years.
But wait ... just received a fax from Michael Faraday. Let's see here, Michael says to "lay off", because Fragnatious has a good point.
Well, we can stop that ... I'm faxing him back the complete LIGO specifications and physical blueprint. Probably bankrupt the poor man on thermal paper alone. No problem. He's a resourceful bastard—if half of what comes down to us is true, he can probably complete his investigations in debtors prison just fine.
I guess there's always room for one more colour change.
I know horses can count to three and do simple arithmetic, but to bolt the barn at the very stroke of four hundred greatly surpasses my prior estimation of equine quantitative analysis.
"Storm's-a-brewin'," says the white horse, from behind the thoroughly bolted barn door.
"North of four hundred! Wouldn't be caught dead in that climate," says the black horse, giving the topmost bolt a final check with his teeth.
"Not with those bloody superstitious bipeds completely giving up on proactive management, just because they burst through the first screw-up milestone still in the same old business-as-usual blind gallop," agrees the chestnut.
"Typical glue-obsessed skin-pickling apes," agrees the white horse. "I'm waiting this out from in here."
"Agreed," says the black horse. "Unless. Duty. Summons."
"That creeps me out," says the white horse, moving another step away. "How will you know?"
"Stormy, moonless nights, black cats, one-eyed bats—all the assorted omens of end times and human fate," says the chestnut.
"Stop kidding around," says the black horse. "Salty white filigrees on the cement floor will spell things out all too clearly."
"Good to know we don't have to stand around counting bats eyes," says the white horse. "That would have sucked."
"Beats what the humans can manage," says the chestnut.
Here the white horse lets fly with a giant fart of approval.
"Hey, stop that, meth breath!" says the chestnut.
"Too late!" says the white horse, "better out than in."
"Wrong," says the black horse. "Better in than out," continues the black horse, after checking the middle bolt with his teeth one last time.