Choice is the only weapon we have to deal with it.
If you punish your kid for getting beat up, they don't learn anything - other than to fear getting beat up more than before. The result is a cycle of paranoia.
If you, on the other hand, train your kid to deal with the bully in a sensible matter - laughing at them, fighting back, even just staring the little fucker down with a few carefully chosen words - the kid figures out that the bully is not someone to fear.
The problem is a bit larger than you think. Chronic bullies often end up in organized crime. Their victims often end up under the thumb of adult bullies. Teching your kid early on how to deal with the situation can help prevent them from becoming part of that system.
Hehe. Nah. If you've got access to a grading system, you'd better give yourself A's, B's and the occasional C. Getting caught doing this sort of thing can put you in more trouble than an occasional bad grade can.
Not implying that its their fault. Most people don't bother to train in martial arts. Getting raped is evidence you didn't have before: there are those in your area who would do something that horrible. The logical response is to learn to defend yourself. That is, after you've gotten through the initial emotional trauma.
And while the crimes are no where near the same degree, the bike comparison is valid; I was recently in Exton (a 'burb of my area) and saw at least seven bikes that weren't locked up. I thought to myself, "That would never fly in Philly, but I guess people don't steal bikes around here". Thing is, the second one of them gets swiped, I'll bet the ex-owner buys a lock for it.
Almost always caught them off guard. For some reason, if you're not taking the bully seriously, their balls shrink to the size of rasins.
'Course, this never works when you're being attacked by a fucker and his cronies. The only way to deal with that group is to jam the angry end of a pencil into the thigh of the loudest fucker there. Sure, you get suspended, maybe even a psych eval, but you get the rep for being 'crazy', and you can always make up your grades.
That one got me through high school. Didn't have a pencil in middle school, but there was a bottle laying on the ground next to the group, so I just grabbed it, broke it and swung it like a retard. That got me in less trouble, oddly enough, and still got me the nutjob rep.
You're right, they sometimes are at fault. Maybe they weren't careful enough. Maybe they did something stupid, leaving themselves open.
Still, they need to be told what they did wrong, and given the tools necessary to not have it happen again. Get raped? Fine. Go to martial arts training and kick the shit out of the next guy who tries to rape you. Got your bike stolen? lock it the hell up.
I'm not saying coddle the victim, I'm saying empower the victim. But punish? Fuck that. Being the victim of a crime is punishment enough.
Unfortunately, being the victim to a crime leaves them feeling lost. Action must be take by those who care about them to make certain it doesn't happen again - and the best way to do this is to give them the tools they need to prevent it; 'teach a man to fish...', after all.
Yeah. Punishment is negative reinforcement. Coddling is nill reinforcement (making the bad things go away is removing the already existing negative reinforcement). Training is positive reinforcement, the sort that can balance the negative reinforcement caused by being a victim.
That said, a good deal of this country are whiners; too many people think they are 'victims', to the point where the word loses its meaning. It's what happens when you cancel the reinforcement through coddling; the person thinks that 'victim' is just a natural state of being.
Fuck that. It's all about teaching self-reliance.
Still, your brain-dead method causes the opposite problem; the person becomes rediculously paranoid. This, if you can't tell, is also bad. Living in fear is not living. Your children may very likely have a lot of unlearning to do when they leave your household.
Or not. They may end up like my uncle, who was raised in much the way you described; machiavellian, self-important, and generally unhappy.
Just like anything else, if you give dangerous tools to the mentally unstable, tragedy will ensue.
I vote for outlawing guns, knives, violent videogames, pencils, liquid soap, cooking oil, small churches, and Dihydrogen Monoxide, as all these things can and have been used to kill.
It's a valid patent./.'ers are generally against patents on nontangibles (such as software, processes, and obvious concepts). This is an actual invention that actually benefits consumers. I don't see why slashdotters should oppose it.
That said, 8% is a bit high, but he can rather dictate terms; he's got a valid patent and a valid product. He could probaably also prove that the device is 8% of the cost of a table saw, meaning he has a right to 8% of the profits on any saw sold with the technology.
He doesn't have to, by the by.
Meanwhile, the companies are opposed because it means they are now liable for the same sorts of things almost any other producer of dangerous shit is liable for - the social cost of injuries to the end user. That sounds like whining to me.
Actually, he made enemies because he raised the liability bar on the industry.
By adding a safety feature that prevents the loss of limb, he has effectively made all other saw manufacturers liable for the injuries stupid people cause themselves, i.e., why doesn't their saw have this technology.
I don't know of the other two companies, so I can't comment. If it were MacAffe and Grisoft along with Symantec, I'd argue the point more vehemently.
Still, Symantec makes an (arguably) good product (while I wouldn't trust it with my sister, many enterprises consider it the gold standard in security software).
To tell the truth, security software SHOULD be using black-hat techniques. And Windows itself shouldn't be bothering with the security field (save for the 'Security Center', which is useful as a BOO in a corporate environment). Letting Windows handle its own security is kinda like letting the old crusty half-asleep guard be in charge of securing a skyscraper all by his lonesome; he's already proven he's not exactly paying attention.
Hm. I think working with thin, insulated gloves would make it just as effective on metals.
On moist woods, though I don't think that the characteristic voltage drop would be close enough to flesh to warrant a triggerring, if properly calibrated. They could include a calibration system. Press a button and touch the (not moving) blade. Then, when it's sawing moist wood, it doesn't trigger; different voltage drop characteristic.
In any case, this isn't to save people from 'everyday' silly mistakes; after all, you only need to saw your fingers off once.
Way to jump in a week later. Two other people have corrected me, and I've checked out Wikipedia on the subject. They're right; the ionization trail causes a much lower resistance than I thought would be there, resulting in the jigga-what's stated in BTTF.
*smirk* so sue me. It's a forum, not an electrical engineering course.
Check out the other responses to reasons for brightness. I think probably it's the same sort of effect that causes flourescent bulbs to flouresce; electrical activity exciting the air molecules along the ionized trail.
Dunno why that was modded funny. It's somewhat true.
The potential error in any float is 1/(2^N) where N is the number of bits used to store the significant digits (called the mantissa)... just like the potential error in a written decimal number is 1/(10^N).
So? Well, for stuff where you need standard (N=3) float-error, use N=10 for binary. You won't find this, mind you.
Just for reference: IEEE 754 (standard floating point numbers) in 32-bit uses 23 bits for its mantissa, and 8 bits as its exponent. Maximum static error in storage: 1/8388608 in 64-bit, it uses 52 bits for the mantissa and 11 for the exponent. Maximum storage error: 1/4.5 Quadrillion Note that 754 uses a 'hidden' bit, being the unnecessary 1 at the start of the mantissa (in binary, since the number needs to be aligned to the first nonzero, and the only nonzeron in binary is 1, you don't need to store the first bit of the mantissa. Still, motorola 80 bit numbers do bother to store it)
No, C will automatically recast a number as needed in cases like the above.
The issue is actually a pretty commonly understood situation when going from decimal floating point numbers to binary IEEE floats (I have another comment on here describing how they're stored), and it basically comes down to this:
Floats of any sort are stored as an int with an int shift (a.aa x b^c). As such, there will be aliasing problems based on the prime components of b. A known percentage of divisors will produce repeating numbers. For example, any division of 3,5,7,11.... in base 2 will be repeating. Any division of 3,7,11,13... in base 10 will be repeating.
No, there's nothing you can do about it. Use higher precision if needed, and otherwise get over it.
IEEE floats are encoded as binary data, that is, as a base-2 fixed-point number. We first assume that the first bit (the only one before the decimal (binimal?) point) is 1. We can assume this because, in base 2, a properly aligned SCI number will have 1 as its first digit. As such, we don't have to store it.
The later digits represent sucessive divisions of base-2: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc. There is also stored the shift.
So, basically, they're stored as 1.BBBB x 2^N
Is this the most efficient? Well, for a computer, yes. It makes math using them a hell of a lot easier.
It's also storage efficient for the free bit we get.
Of course, this means that many decimal numbers are innaccurately stored; 0.37, for example, would need stored as: (1.)011110101110000100100011... (x2^)-10
Is this good? bad? Well, I don't know. In Base 15, to pick a number at random, 1/3 is stored as 0.5, while in decimal it's 0.333333....
You could use fractional math, but even in higher level code it's a freaky amount of work (getting LCD and GCD for fractional reduction and such is messy in code). You could store everything as decimal, but you end up with the same inaccuaracies as with binary, just with different characteristics.
Talk to anyone who uses noninteger math on a regular basis. They'll tell you that when dealing with floats, you always expect some error; the way to handle it is to determine what your maximum percent error is, and add one significant bit past that.
Move to amsterdam. You'll find a lot who aren't screwing up others' lives.
The reason?
Risk expense. The addict in this country has to pay for risk expense of the entire chain of dealers and suppliers. These are people who wouldn't have jobs if there were no control of substances (why pay a trafficing chain when you can pay a trucker?).
With legalized drugs, the risk expense becomes nil; a drug addict doesn't have to sell his momma's jewelry to pay for his next hit. He could probably get away with selling a pint of blood for his next 6-10 hits.
Not to mention the reduction in drug-related crime (what major corporation have YOU seen have a major gunfight with the police on US soil?) and in actual addiction (you don't have pushers on the streets; they have no incentive to push).
You'll still have addicts (as you still have nicotiene addicts and alcoholics), but the issue will be considerably less dramatic than it is today.
Slashdot Mirror
That's as may be.
I mean, I DO like my mad science.
Reality is what humans have forced upon them.
Choice is the only weapon we have to deal with it.
If you punish your kid for getting beat up, they don't learn anything - other than to fear getting beat up more than before. The result is a cycle of paranoia.
If you, on the other hand, train your kid to deal with the bully in a sensible matter - laughing at them, fighting back, even just staring the little fucker down with a few carefully chosen words - the kid figures out that the bully is not someone to fear.
The problem is a bit larger than you think. Chronic bullies often end up in organized crime. Their victims often end up under the thumb of adult bullies. Teching your kid early on how to deal with the situation can help prevent them from becoming part of that system.
Hehe. Nah. If you've got access to a grading system, you'd better give yourself A's, B's and the occasional C. Getting caught doing this sort of thing can put you in more trouble than an occasional bad grade can.
Not implying that its their fault. Most people don't bother to train in martial arts. Getting raped is evidence you didn't have before: there are those in your area who would do something that horrible. The logical response is to learn to defend yourself. That is, after you've gotten through the initial emotional trauma.
And while the crimes are no where near the same degree, the bike comparison is valid; I was recently in Exton (a 'burb of my area) and saw at least seven bikes that weren't locked up. I thought to myself, "That would never fly in Philly, but I guess people don't steal bikes around here". Thing is, the second one of them gets swiped, I'll bet the ex-owner buys a lock for it.
5) Laugh at them
Almost always caught them off guard. For some reason, if you're not taking the bully seriously, their balls shrink to the size of rasins.
'Course, this never works when you're being attacked by a fucker and his cronies. The only way to deal with that group is to jam the angry end of a pencil into the thigh of the loudest fucker there. Sure, you get suspended, maybe even a psych eval, but you get the rep for being 'crazy', and you can always make up your grades.
That one got me through high school. Didn't have a pencil in middle school, but there was a bottle laying on the ground next to the group, so I just grabbed it, broke it and swung it like a retard. That got me in less trouble, oddly enough, and still got me the nutjob rep.
in resp to Shane:
War always solves the problem, but crops up a whole new set of 'em.
Ah, guilt.
You're right, they sometimes are at fault. Maybe they weren't careful enough. Maybe they did something stupid, leaving themselves open.
Still, they need to be told what they did wrong, and given the tools necessary to not have it happen again. Get raped? Fine. Go to martial arts training and kick the shit out of the next guy who tries to rape you. Got your bike stolen? lock it the hell up.
I'm not saying coddle the victim, I'm saying empower the victim. But punish? Fuck that. Being the victim of a crime is punishment enough.
Unfortunately, being the victim to a crime leaves them feeling lost. Action must be take by those who care about them to make certain it doesn't happen again - and the best way to do this is to give them the tools they need to prevent it; 'teach a man to fish...', after all.
Yeah. Punishment is negative reinforcement. Coddling is nill reinforcement (making the bad things go away is removing the already existing negative reinforcement). Training is positive reinforcement, the sort that can balance the negative reinforcement caused by being a victim.
That said, a good deal of this country are whiners; too many people think they are 'victims', to the point where the word loses its meaning. It's what happens when you cancel the reinforcement through coddling; the person thinks that 'victim' is just a natural state of being.
Fuck that. It's all about teaching self-reliance.
Still, your brain-dead method causes the opposite problem; the person becomes rediculously paranoid. This, if you can't tell, is also bad. Living in fear is not living. Your children may very likely have a lot of unlearning to do when they leave your household.
Or not. They may end up like my uncle, who was raised in much the way you described; machiavellian, self-important, and generally unhappy.
Simulation and training are tools.
Just like anything else, if you give dangerous tools to the mentally unstable, tragedy will ensue.
I vote for outlawing guns, knives, violent videogames, pencils, liquid soap, cooking oil, small churches, and Dihydrogen Monoxide, as all these things can and have been used to kill.
Wait... so he's gonna sue because RoskStar didn't give him a prerelease of the game?
Crackhead... as always.
Oh, god. Mod parent funny.
It's a valid patent. /.'ers are generally against patents on nontangibles (such as software, processes, and obvious concepts). This is an actual invention that actually benefits consumers. I don't see why slashdotters should oppose it.
That said, 8% is a bit high, but he can rather dictate terms; he's got a valid patent and a valid product. He could probaably also prove that the device is 8% of the cost of a table saw, meaning he has a right to 8% of the profits on any saw sold with the technology.
He doesn't have to, by the by.
Meanwhile, the companies are opposed because it means they are now liable for the same sorts of things almost any other producer of dangerous shit is liable for - the social cost of injuries to the end user. That sounds like whining to me.
Actually, he made enemies because he raised the liability bar on the industry.
By adding a safety feature that prevents the loss of limb, he has effectively made all other saw manufacturers liable for the injuries stupid people cause themselves, i.e., why doesn't their saw have this technology.
I don't know of the other two companies, so I can't comment. If it were MacAffe and Grisoft along with Symantec, I'd argue the point more vehemently.
Still, Symantec makes an (arguably) good product (while I wouldn't trust it with my sister, many enterprises consider it the gold standard in security software).
To tell the truth, security software SHOULD be using black-hat techniques. And Windows itself shouldn't be bothering with the security field (save for the 'Security Center', which is useful as a BOO in a corporate environment). Letting Windows handle its own security is kinda like letting the old crusty half-asleep guard be in charge of securing a skyscraper all by his lonesome; he's already proven he's not exactly paying attention.
Well, you can saw them off ten times in total... though you can also get a number of 'em in one go.
Hm. I think working with thin, insulated gloves would make it just as effective on metals.
On moist woods, though I don't think that the characteristic voltage drop would be close enough to flesh to warrant a triggerring, if properly calibrated. They could include a calibration system. Press a button and touch the (not moving) blade. Then, when it's sawing moist wood, it doesn't trigger; different voltage drop characteristic.
In any case, this isn't to save people from 'everyday' silly mistakes; after all, you only need to saw your fingers off once.
Way to jump in a week later. Two other people have corrected me, and I've checked out Wikipedia on the subject. They're right; the ionization trail causes a much lower resistance than I thought would be there, resulting in the jigga-what's stated in BTTF.
*smirk* so sue me. It's a forum, not an electrical engineering course.
Check out the other responses to reasons for brightness. I think probably it's the same sort of effect that causes flourescent bulbs to flouresce; electrical activity exciting the air molecules along the ionized trail.
Easily is a relative term. Euclid's algorithm is usually implemented recursively, and I think its Big O is something like N*log(N) at minimum.
Perhaps you don't consider that messy. It's not something anyone wants done before/after each operation.
I for one welcome our new predictabe slashdotter overlords.
Dunno why that was modded funny. It's somewhat true.
The potential error in any float is 1/(2^N) where N is the number of bits used to store the significant digits (called the mantissa)... just like the potential error in a written decimal number is 1/(10^N).
So? Well, for stuff where you need standard (N=3) float-error, use N=10 for binary. You won't find this, mind you.
Just for reference:
IEEE 754 (standard floating point numbers) in 32-bit uses 23 bits for its mantissa, and 8 bits as its exponent. Maximum static error in storage: 1/8388608
in 64-bit, it uses 52 bits for the mantissa and 11 for the exponent. Maximum storage error: 1/4.5 Quadrillion
Note that 754 uses a 'hidden' bit, being the unnecessary 1 at the start of the mantissa (in binary, since the number needs to be aligned to the first nonzero, and the only nonzeron in binary is 1, you don't need to store the first bit of the mantissa. Still, motorola 80 bit numbers do bother to store it)
No, C will automatically recast a number as needed in cases like the above.
The issue is actually a pretty commonly understood situation when going from decimal floating point numbers to binary IEEE floats (I have another comment on here describing how they're stored), and it basically comes down to this:
Floats of any sort are stored as an int with an int shift (a.aa x b^c). As such, there will be aliasing problems based on the prime components of b. A known percentage of divisors will produce repeating numbers. For example, any division of 3,5,7,11.... in base 2 will be repeating. Any division of 3,7,11,13... in base 10 will be repeating.
No, there's nothing you can do about it. Use higher precision if needed, and otherwise get over it.
They kinda are...
IEEE floats are encoded as binary data, that is, as a base-2 fixed-point number. We first assume that the first bit (the only one before the decimal (binimal?) point) is 1. We can assume this because, in base 2, a properly aligned SCI number will have 1 as its first digit. As such, we don't have to store it.
The later digits represent sucessive divisions of base-2: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc. There is also stored the shift.
So, basically, they're stored as 1.BBBB x 2^N
Is this the most efficient? Well, for a computer, yes. It makes math using them a hell of a lot easier.
It's also storage efficient for the free bit we get.
Of course, this means that many decimal numbers are innaccurately stored; 0.37, for example, would need stored as:
(1.)011110101110000100100011... (x2^)-10
Is this good? bad? Well, I don't know. In Base 15, to pick a number at random, 1/3 is stored as 0.5, while in decimal it's 0.333333....
You could use fractional math, but even in higher level code it's a freaky amount of work (getting LCD and GCD for fractional reduction and such is messy in code). You could store everything as decimal, but you end up with the same inaccuaracies as with binary, just with different characteristics.
Talk to anyone who uses noninteger math on a regular basis. They'll tell you that when dealing with floats, you always expect some error; the way to handle it is to determine what your maximum percent error is, and add one significant bit past that.
I'm thinking, why not just store a copy of Wikipedia (as just webpages - a full mirror) in a squashfs (or similarly block-compressed) archive.
It's the whole instant-access thing.
Um...
FlyaKiteOSX.
One package. No configuring needed.
Move to amsterdam. You'll find a lot who aren't screwing up others' lives.
The reason?
Risk expense. The addict in this country has to pay for risk expense of the entire chain of dealers and suppliers. These are people who wouldn't have jobs if there were no control of substances (why pay a trafficing chain when you can pay a trucker?).
With legalized drugs, the risk expense becomes nil; a drug addict doesn't have to sell his momma's jewelry to pay for his next hit. He could probably get away with selling a pint of blood for his next 6-10 hits.
Not to mention the reduction in drug-related crime (what major corporation have YOU seen have a major gunfight with the police on US soil?) and in actual addiction (you don't have pushers on the streets; they have no incentive to push).
You'll still have addicts (as you still have nicotiene addicts and alcoholics), but the issue will be considerably less dramatic than it is today.
It is informative. Apparently, GGP didn't know.