So you are saying that because you fail at logic, we must lie to make you feel better? He didn't pirate. He shared information about it (to the point some say he advocated it). You seem to agree with those facts, but wish to persecute him for saying undesired things. I'm not splitting the hairs, you are.
The FBI does not include Suicide in their Homicide stats.
Do they include traffic crashes? More places track homicide to what someone would think of "violent death" or "non-natural" death. And what do they do about Kurt Kobain's death or Michael Jackson's? Self-administered accidental death could go to either suicide or homicide. To avoid such questions and subjective assignment, many countries just count all homicides together. It's more accurate that way.
The only question remaining is what kind of person are you: are you trying to use data to conceal like a bad politician? Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?
Accuracy over use. I don't care what you think they imply, or what the politicians think they imply. The only number collected consistently internationally is homicide (including suicide). Thus it's the *only* valid number to start international comparisons from. When not comparing internationally, there may be better numbers, but that wasn't the topic.
Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?
One can understand the social application and not care. The purity of the numbers is more important than the agenda of those that don't like the implications of the most correct numbers.
"murder" has an inconsistent definition around the world. "homicide" is relatively static. That's why homicide is the preferred comparative.
That's why it's the least manipulated number. After those are collected, we "correct" for numbers we don't like (like removing suicides or whatever the manipulator wants to correct for).
No. I'm trying to get the "best" objective number. Your subjective numbers tainted. We can extrapolate and interpolate from that. But the *only* objective number does (And should) include suicide. How do you separate out a gun cleaning accident from a suicide? How do you separate out criminal negligent homicide from non-criminal homicide? You count the dead. Worry about motivations later. That's the *only* objective measure.
You whine constantly when I point this out, but aside from general objection, you can't voice any improvements.
Homo-cide means person-death. It's come to mean unnatural death. Accidental deaths are usually counted as homicides, because "cause unknown - likely accident" and "cause unknown - likely murder" would allow a great amount of subjectivity in classification. So all violent deaths are counted, regardless of whether they are accidents or suicide.
That's the raw number collected by most places, count all violent deaths, regardless of cause, as cause is often not known for certain. Then the people with a cause to champion like you step in and "exclude" the inconvenient numbers to get the desired result.
Funny how the conservatives want every individual counted, and no estimations done at all for the census, and want to make up numbers for homicide, without regard to the actual complete count. Why is it that estimation is "best" for one and hated for the other? Is consistency too much to ask for?
I think they deliberately tried to make it fail. Perhaps they just grabbed a bad plan by chance and it didn't work, but I think they put more effort into making sure it failed. Probably in choice of material and pattern. They want to scare people away from it, not actually see what would happen when someone actually makes one work. Because people have made them work.
And with maker spaces, many people have access to one. Like all the people who object to "Internet required" were told to shut up and go to the library.
Suicide is a homicide. Most statistics don't try to classify all the types of homicide. So the most accurate numbers will include suicide. All others are the subjective numbers pushed by those with an agenda.
Homicides are higher in the US than the UK. Yes, that includes suicide, as suicides are a homicide. "violent crimes" are higher in the UK, but deaths from them are much lower. Many things aren't crimes in the US, or aren't "violent", but are elsewhere. I haven't read the laws of the UK in enough detail, but some "hate speech" crimes and assaults are illegal in the UK as violent crimes and legal in the US. So yes, when the laws don't match, the rates don't match. Dead is an easier and more objective measure. Even if they don't lean your preferred way.
In Switzerland you must have permission to buy a gun. And failure to train in a government approved center will result in revoking your permit.
If you are advocating a national permit before buying a gun, and taking guns away if you don't train in a government approved manner. Oh, and ammunition is regulated. Sounds like more gun control than the USA, not less.
Part of the problem is that the laws are different. In some places, pointing with your finger like it's a gun is a "violent crime". And if it's like rape when I was in college in the US, the rates are low because people who come forward are discouraged from filing a formal complaint. It makes it look like a "safer" place when there are fewer reports of rape.
It is an error correction protocol to reduce OSI layer 2 packet (or more properly, "frame") retransmission.
But the "frame" doesn't exist end-to-end, but is re-created for each network segment. So their statements that it runs on the endpoints and doesn't require any changes in the middle indicates it is a higher layer protocol. Some of the layer 2 already include FEC. So why have double FEC? (it's bad). It's not double FEC at the same layer, but an application-layer FEC (based on their description). You can have them on different layers because they are correcting different things. L-2 FEC is correcting bit errors from noise or other physical issues. L-7 FEC is correcting lost packets.
But the one thing we do know for sure is that the article is crap. It's detailed when it shouldn't be, but leaves out all useful details. That takes some skill. But skill in what, we aren't sure.
And just a nit for you, AK Marc - if someone says UDP is "running over TCP/IP", tell them to put down the router and step away from the rack. They just aren't qualified.
How about "UDP is a member of the TCP/IP suite of protocols"? Though most leave off the "suite of protocols" at the end, it's implied. I know lots of people smarter than you that would say "UDP is a subset of TCP/IP" or some other wording to that effect. Even Wikipedia agrees with me. TCP/IP is shorthand for The Internet Protocol Suite, which includes UDP. So UDP "runs over" TCP/IP
UDP is not a subset of TCP. It's just that no one says "UDP/IP". It's a socketless datagram and has its own protocol ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... TCP/IP is shorthand for The Internet Protocol Suite. UDP is a protocol in The Internet Protocol Suite. Therefore, you are 100% wrong, in your wording, UDP is a subset of TCP. You just chose to leave off the "/IP" because you know you are wrong.
Why would you put that on top of a streaming protocol like TCP/IP that's got all the flow control and retry logic happening under the covers? Surely you'd run RLNC over UDP!
UDP is a subset of TCP/IP. They worded it horribly, but it's likely not using TCP for flow control. Note the large number of odd statements, "TCP-IP" rather than TCP/IP. And "the immediately earlier sequenced packet" rather than "the previously transmitted packet" or "the packet with the previous sequence number" or something else that isn't unclear. I doubt they had an engineer write it, and the tech writer didn't understand what they were writing about.
And it may be different applications. R-S may be "perfect" for the type of coding it does, but it isn't purely FEC, so it's both perfect, and beaten by lots of codes for wireless FEC. Or it's perfect for "random" drops/noise, but noise/drops aren't random. So many others can beat it because "perfect" is a mathematical truth, but doesn't work for the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that because you fail at logic, we must lie to make you feel better? He didn't pirate. He shared information about it (to the point some say he advocated it). You seem to agree with those facts, but wish to persecute him for saying undesired things. I'm not splitting the hairs, you are.
Or they can send him to the US to serve the sentence, concurrent with his trial in the US.
So, what would you do with people that make The Anarchist Cookbook available? Jail? Or should we just burn the books, is that far enough?
He performed no piracy. He allowed people to share information. He facilitated undesirable speech, not unlike "real" political prisoners.
The FBI does not include Suicide in their Homicide stats.
Do they include traffic crashes? More places track homicide to what someone would think of "violent death" or "non-natural" death. And what do they do about Kurt Kobain's death or Michael Jackson's? Self-administered accidental death could go to either suicide or homicide. To avoid such questions and subjective assignment, many countries just count all homicides together. It's more accurate that way.
The only question remaining is what kind of person are you: are you trying to use data to conceal like a bad politician? Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?
Accuracy over use. I don't care what you think they imply, or what the politicians think they imply. The only number collected consistently internationally is homicide (including suicide). Thus it's the *only* valid number to start international comparisons from. When not comparing internationally, there may be better numbers, but that wasn't the topic.
Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?
One can understand the social application and not care. The purity of the numbers is more important than the agenda of those that don't like the implications of the most correct numbers.
Combine the worst of both. It'll be amazing.
"murder" has an inconsistent definition around the world. "homicide" is relatively static. That's why homicide is the preferred comparative.
That's why it's the least manipulated number. After those are collected, we "correct" for numbers we don't like (like removing suicides or whatever the manipulator wants to correct for).
It's not just the military gun that has the ammo tracked, but *all* ammo in the country is tracked.
So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... all over again?
No. I'm trying to get the "best" objective number. Your subjective numbers tainted. We can extrapolate and interpolate from that. But the *only* objective number does (And should) include suicide. How do you separate out a gun cleaning accident from a suicide? How do you separate out criminal negligent homicide from non-criminal homicide? You count the dead. Worry about motivations later. That's the *only* objective measure.
You whine constantly when I point this out, but aside from general objection, you can't voice any improvements.
Homo-cide means person-death. It's come to mean unnatural death. Accidental deaths are usually counted as homicides, because "cause unknown - likely accident" and "cause unknown - likely murder" would allow a great amount of subjectivity in classification. So all violent deaths are counted, regardless of whether they are accidents or suicide.
That's the raw number collected by most places, count all violent deaths, regardless of cause, as cause is often not known for certain. Then the people with a cause to champion like you step in and "exclude" the inconvenient numbers to get the desired result.
Funny how the conservatives want every individual counted, and no estimations done at all for the census, and want to make up numbers for homicide, without regard to the actual complete count. Why is it that estimation is "best" for one and hated for the other? Is consistency too much to ask for?
I think they deliberately tried to make it fail. Perhaps they just grabbed a bad plan by chance and it didn't work, but I think they put more effort into making sure it failed. Probably in choice of material and pattern. They want to scare people away from it, not actually see what would happen when someone actually makes one work. Because people have made them work.
And with maker spaces, many people have access to one. Like all the people who object to "Internet required" were told to shut up and go to the library.
Suicide is a homicide. Most statistics don't try to classify all the types of homicide. So the most accurate numbers will include suicide. All others are the subjective numbers pushed by those with an agenda.
Homicides are higher in the US than the UK. Yes, that includes suicide, as suicides are a homicide. "violent crimes" are higher in the UK, but deaths from them are much lower. Many things aren't crimes in the US, or aren't "violent", but are elsewhere. I haven't read the laws of the UK in enough detail, but some "hate speech" crimes and assaults are illegal in the UK as violent crimes and legal in the US. So yes, when the laws don't match, the rates don't match. Dead is an easier and more objective measure. Even if they don't lean your preferred way.
In Switzerland you must have permission to buy a gun. And failure to train in a government approved center will result in revoking your permit.
If you are advocating a national permit before buying a gun, and taking guns away if you don't train in a government approved manner. Oh, and ammunition is regulated. Sounds like more gun control than the USA, not less.
Part of the problem is that the laws are different. In some places, pointing with your finger like it's a gun is a "violent crime". And if it's like rape when I was in college in the US, the rates are low because people who come forward are discouraged from filing a formal complaint. It makes it look like a "safer" place when there are fewer reports of rape.
Suicide is a homicide (as is an accidental traffic crash with no prosecution). "murder" is a deliberate homicide with other constraints.
It is an error correction protocol to reduce OSI layer 2 packet (or more properly, "frame") retransmission.
But the "frame" doesn't exist end-to-end, but is re-created for each network segment. So their statements that it runs on the endpoints and doesn't require any changes in the middle indicates it is a higher layer protocol. Some of the layer 2 already include FEC. So why have double FEC? (it's bad). It's not double FEC at the same layer, but an application-layer FEC (based on their description). You can have them on different layers because they are correcting different things. L-2 FEC is correcting bit errors from noise or other physical issues. L-7 FEC is correcting lost packets.
But the one thing we do know for sure is that the article is crap. It's detailed when it shouldn't be, but leaves out all useful details. That takes some skill. But skill in what, we aren't sure.
And just a nit for you, AK Marc - if someone says UDP is "running over TCP/IP", tell them to put down the router and step away from the rack. They just aren't qualified.
How about "UDP is a member of the TCP/IP suite of protocols"? Though most leave off the "suite of protocols" at the end, it's implied. I know lots of people smarter than you that would say "UDP is a subset of TCP/IP" or some other wording to that effect. Even Wikipedia agrees with me. TCP/IP is shorthand for The Internet Protocol Suite, which includes UDP. So UDP "runs over" TCP/IP
I think they are using UDP, but didn't want to get into specifics, so the writer screwed it up. UDP is a member of the TCP/IP suite of protocols.
UDP is not a subset of TCP. It's just that no one says "UDP/IP". It's a socketless datagram and has its own protocol ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... TCP/IP is shorthand for The Internet Protocol Suite. UDP is a protocol in The Internet Protocol Suite. Therefore, you are 100% wrong, in your wording, UDP is a subset of TCP. You just chose to leave off the "/IP" because you know you are wrong.
Why would you put that on top of a streaming protocol like TCP/IP that's got all the flow control and retry logic happening under the covers? Surely you'd run RLNC over UDP!
UDP is a subset of TCP/IP. They worded it horribly, but it's likely not using TCP for flow control. Note the large number of odd statements, "TCP-IP" rather than TCP/IP. And "the immediately earlier sequenced packet" rather than "the previously transmitted packet" or "the packet with the previous sequence number" or something else that isn't unclear. I doubt they had an engineer write it, and the tech writer didn't understand what they were writing about.
And it may be different applications. R-S may be "perfect" for the type of coding it does, but it isn't purely FEC, so it's both perfect, and beaten by lots of codes for wireless FEC. Or it's perfect for "random" drops/noise, but noise/drops aren't random. So many others can beat it because "perfect" is a mathematical truth, but doesn't work for the real world.