Yeah, it was easier when I had to figure out what all this "daemon -x $DAEMON -p $PIDFILE" shit was, somehow translate that to the actual command being run, modify the init.d script, run it, try to catch an error, then go and put everything back the way it was and try again.
Categorically false. Peoples's abilities demonstrably change with interest and motivation. Stephen Hawking wasn't some genius kid until he became disabled; he decided he didn't want to be a useless lump, and that the only tool he had was his mind, and that he wanted to use it in the most spectacular way possible because anything mundane would fail to set him apart, so he took the big subject: quantum physics and the pioneering study of the universe itself at the most basic level. Hard work and determination made him what he is today; hard work and determination were fueled by a meaningful interest in the only thing he could do that would meet his goals.
It's even demonstrable that the entire human race functions in this way. The four-minute mile was broken in 1957, long considered physically impossible for a human; two months later it had been broken by two more individuals, and within the year it was broken by dozens of people. It's now the standard for distance runners--once considered impossible, it's now considered a thing normal people can do if they try hard enough.
Olympic records are regularly broken, as are mental records for internal computation and memory, by leaps and bounds, every single year. Further, every such record that's broken becomes a new baseline: the human race goes from no individual being able to achieve these feats to all of the same individuals achieving them as a matter of course, just by being told they're attainable.
In the general case--excluding the specifically handicapped--human ability is approximately level. It has been studied and proven time and again. Experts have been synthesized from non-experts, even old people--elderly folks in their 60s have been bestowed with incredible problem-solving and memory prowess by teaching them techniques new to them, allowing them to grasp and analyze things like never before, and to perform at a level of a brilliant college student. These people appeared to reverse their mental aging but, in truth, they simply became experts in analytical thought and mnemonics: they studied, practiced, and applied mental tactics so as to function on the level of a bright, young student.
That particular experiment was interesting: it showed that such people did not improve in tasks where these tactics weren't applicable--they didn't become smarter, and their brains didn't get stronger from mental exercise--but that they did learn and routinely apply the mental skills taught to them with fantastic results, when applicable. In other words: they were still normal people of normal intellect; yet, in some subset of tasks, they appeared much more intelligent than when they started.
Studies of the brain structure of intelligent people shows no difference from normal, non-damaged people. Occasionally we see interesting things on fMRIs--synesthetes light up all over the place, and mnemonists and skilled problem solvers occasionally utilize some facilities more heavily--but the great differences are always psychological. From interviews with synesthetes with astounding memories, we have learned to imitate their involuntary thought processes, synthesizing our own astounding memories. Likewise, strong problem-solvers have divulged intricate thought processes which we've generalized and applied on minds of normal intelligence.
In the end, it comes down to effort, and effort comes down to interest: you simply won't study what you're not interested in. It takes some directed focus to memorize something; and you don't learn anything if you don't remember it--if you breeze through a math text while thinking about video games, you'll forget everything you read. One study tactic occasionally professed is to make uninteresting material more meaningful by relating it to something that does interest you--for example, geometry to cooking, especially if you like to bake--while the better-known study strategies explain what to do once something is interesting enough to study--survey it, write questions, read and recit
Not the point, but interesting. You know the electronics in that package decay from heat and electrostatic material migration. If the CFL lasts a few months more than the LED, the CFL is a big savings win; if the LED lasts almost as long, it's a savings win.
There is a belief that memorization is bad, and that learning requires understanding. That is to say: school system administrators, educators, and teachers have accepted memorization as a terrible thing, and are determined to make students "learn" and "understand". This goes back to the progressive education movement by John Dewey, which came after faculty learning was debunked--we discovered the brain is not a muscle and cannot be made stronger by exercising the various mental faculties (memory, language, etc.)--and transitioned to a "student-focused" model in which students would "experience" rather than study from textbooks (i.e. mix vinegar and baking soda, grow plants from seeds, and call that "science education").
I am implying that you cannot understand what you do not know, and you cannot know what you cannot remember. To remember is to know; to understand is to associate something you know to something else you know and synthesize their mutual impact. Likewise, to make meaningful is to make memorable: the more you remember, know, and understand, the more you can come to remember, know, and understand.
Taking all this together, it stands to reason that any technique for loading more facts into your head, for better associating them, and for better understanding their implications would improve your intelligence. If you can increase the amount of knowledge you can take in and retain, you can learn faster; if you have learned more, you have more to draw from to apply to new problems.
In short: to process information and derive abstract representations, you must have a basis of comparison to associate that information from. To produce exceptional output, you must associate new information with information you already possess, and synthesize additional information. To invent new things, you associate a problem with all related information you know about, and possibly discover that some information is related in a way nobody else in the world has ever considered, and produce a new method or device which reflects this relation.
The more you know and the more thoroughly you know it, the more intelligent you are. Humans are not limited in capacity such that one person can know more things more thoroughly than another person, except that one person may suffer a gross mental defect. We know these defects as autism, as retardation, as physical brain damage, and as dementia; and even then, the same techniques applied by non-defective minds can raise the minds of many defective individuals exactly to the same level. Autistics and the brain damage particularly have shown many cases where they can be trained to act as fully-functional adults, so much so that nobody can recognize their mental handicap--and so much so that it is no longer a handicap in practice, although their experience is certainly different from the unhandicapped.
Mnemonics *is* a good reference for all that. It's well-studied that older people don't lose their memory capacity unless demented; they can learn new problem solving processes, new memory skills, and new routines. People in their 60s become exactly as functional as people in their 20s when taught mnemonics: their memories are as strong as younger people. So do low and high IQ people.
K. Anders Ericsson has written books and research papers on experts, and explained what makes people experts. In short: it's how they study and practice, not how much time they spend on it or how smart they are. Kenneth L. Higbee has some interesting things to say on the topic of memory, if you can stomach a Ph.D. holder and a mountain of references. Joshua Foer has referenced Ericsson, and John Dewey, but not Higbee. Many people have noticed that simply learning more makes you more intelligent: that having more tools to approach any problem gives you a stronger ability to solve that problem. FMRI studies have even shown little to no difference between scientific geniuses and your average dumbass.
On one hand, the Internet makes it easier for pedophiles to find small children, who are often Internet-savvy in the same way they are get-out-of-mommy-and-daddy's-sight-to-do-something-naughty savvy: we all grew up on slipping one by our parents to go play with our friends and get ourselves into trouble, and the Internet is one more tool to do that, and adults on the Internet can interact with children without being noticed at large.
On the other, I would much rather chance the occasional small child get buttraped now and then than ensure with regular frequency that said small child will grow to a young adult and commit a largely non-harmful crime of stupidity (music swapping, a 16-year-old e-mailing around pictures of himself getting a blowjob from a 14-year-old, etc.) and be exposed to state-sanction buttrape in a juvenile or adult correctional facility for a few years on end.
Uh. 9W 800 lumen LED vs 14W 800 lumen CFL. That's 27 cents per month if the bulb is on 12 hours per day; with my 6 hour per day cycle on my longest-running bulbs, it's not even 1kWh difference.
The entire savings is overshadowed by how long a CFL ballast lasts versus an LED ballast.
Motivation is hormonal: extra testosterone will lead a man to develop more as a jock, trying to impress women, perhaps going onto the football team, whatever. Different balances of various hormones and different sensitivities of neural receptors will, likewise, lead a man to seek to impress his peers (and women) by feats of intelligence; or lead a man to seek any other thing he wants--not just women--by sheer exertion of effort.
In other words: shit is hard, and your mood-influencing biochemical factors will manipulate how much you value an outcome, and thus how much effort you're willing to invest. More value means more effort, and more effort means better results. That's motivation.
Accepting that and then quickly setting it aside as assumption, we don't get "genetic factors for intelligence". Everyone is exactly as intelligent as a human, unless they're brain damaged by disease or defect. Any child, any adult, properly motivated, with proper practice and effort, can be a genius. It is just that simple.
The human memory works by association. Some folks have obscenely good natural memories; they often develop strategies or possess involuntary synesthesias which associate information in unusual ways--numbers to shapes and ideas, sounds to colors, and so on. Others achieve and even surpass the same memories as these people by employing mnemonics strategies to mimic and improve upon these natural talents and defects (synesthesia can be interesting and useful, but also debilitating--a strong synesthete can get a lot of visual imagery when reading, and thus not understand wtf is being said).
Because the human memory works by association, it becomes easier to know more when you know a lot already. If I were to teach your kids hard-core botany, they would be confused as living hell; but I could teach them to grow plants from seed, and teach them the same botanical principles. I could teach them how a plant seed germinates by releasing water-soluble enzymes to break down starch into sugars, illustrating this by breaking open a grain of flour and corn and by growing a seed. I could teach them about the plant's nutrient needs and biochemical processes, showing how it changes colors and becomes sick as I remove various nutrients from its soil or hydroponics feed. They would see and understand the plant, and come to know about its basic processes.
Just as I could use a graphical and demonstrative guide to teach your kids complex biological concepts, I could use their new knowledge of those concepts to teach them deeper and more complex topics. Similarly, I could use your worldly knowledge to teach you much more complex things--they would make sense to you because of all the things you already know. This is how memory works; and learning is memory, for you cannot understand what you don't know, and you cannot know what you don't remember.
The question is: are your kids interested in the growth of seeds? If so, are they interested in all this technical bullshit about amylase enzymes and photosynthesis and the potassium cycle and nitrogen fermentation? If they aren't sufficiently motivated, it will be hard to get them to learn; that doesn't mean they're stupid, but that they don't fucking care.
Building on these base concepts, we have mnemonics (the mind palace, the mnemonic major system, the Person-Action-Object system, acrostics, acronyms) and study methods (SQ3R, SQW3R). By using study methods like SQW3R, a student can strongly learn new textbook information in less time.
The method of SQW3R is to Survey, Question, Write, Read, Recite, Review (would that we could reverse those last two--Survey, Question, Write, Read, Review, Recite; but Recite before Review, or forget what you once knew): survey the topics, headings, the summaries, the graphics; create questions from this material; write down questions and minor notes about what you know and want to know; read, considering the questions as you read;
Highway driving, which is less complex than city driving, has proved easy enough for self-driving cars, but busy downtown streets—where cars and pedestrians jockey for space and behave in confusing and surprising ways—are more problematic.
This is the justification given for building an urban obstacle course to test self-driving cars: they have trouble driving in the city.
I'm pretty sure Google has been near-exclusively testing in busy cities, not cruising on the highways. The car might go on the highway to get to another city or to navigate from area to area, but it spends a fuckload of time cruising city streets. Highway driving data is meaningless to Google, as it's trivially small and provides little opportunity to improve the car; they collect that as a matter of course, and then collect rigorous and diverse data on the complexities of scuttling around in the city.
The Nobel Peace Prize is the high-society American Idol competition: it is airy, mindless fluff for morons and retards who happen to have heads filled with impressive but trivial-to-acquire knowledge.
Whoa whoa, hold on there! Does that make sense? At 15 cents per kWh, 12 hours per day lighting, these bulbs save $2.25/mo over incandescent lighting. That's over $25/year, minus the $10 to buy them. They tend to burn out within the year, though; CFLs have the same issue, and it never actually went away: tons of hours of run time, but not many cycles.
I have occupancy sensors. Some of my lights run 6 hours per day; the rest run rarely. My overall lighting savings is on the order of $2-$3/mo for my entire house of many bulbs. Of course they last longer.
Replacing CFLs with LEDs is a bad deal. Wait for the CFLs to burn out. Incandescent bulbs... put to use in the winter, then recycle (glass, aluminum) when they burn out. LED savings over CFL bulbs is dubious, but they're easier to handle and they put out better quality light than a CFL.
Google is all like, "Look at our shit navigating busy downtown San Francisco streets, dealing with insanity at intersections, crazy drivers, pedestrians, traffic signals, poorly-marked lanes..." They provided a video presentation on the whole thing.
Government is like, "Those fancy new electric cars can self-drive on the highway at 3AM when there's nobody on the road and the lanes are painted in radar-reflective bright white, but they have a lot of trouble navigating when there's a stop sign or another driver on the road!"
ASLR changes the security issue from "trivial, undetectable remote access or privilege escalation" to "trivial, deafeningly loud denial-of-service."
I can write shellcode that hijacks a function, spawns a thread, and creates a controlled jump back to an earlier function, simulating a successful return and allowing the program to continue--a separate thread downloads and mmap()s in a shared object, which provides all the exploit functions without even spawning a new process, even so far as to open a temporary file and then unlink() it and fill it and mmap() the fd so that malware code never goes into a bluntly visible file. This strategy allows httpd or proftpd or any other target with a remote code execution flaw to continue running uninterrupted, while itself hosting a malicious agent.
If the program spawns fork()ed copies, I'd have to repeatedly crash the program--I'd return to the incorrect location, due to not knowing the stack or library or anonymous segment or heap or main executable base addresses--as I chewed iteratively through millions of connections. This is incredibly visible: dmesg shows millions of segfaults, and a smart HIDS could delay and restrict connections from addresses which had connected (initiated) to any socket handled by the crashing process (parent-child fork()-without-execve() relationship). 64-bit systems take this up to the order of 10^30, an infeasible number of attempts even if the system's HIDS and administrator are inattentive; while programs which replace workers after hundreds of executions are facing independent randomized events.
ASLR turns failed security and perfect compromise into less-than-perfect security and less-than-perfect compromise. The cost is effectively null: the moment there's an unused CPU nanosecond, the system recovers from the slowdowns imposed by ASLR. It's on the order of pulling an additional number out of memory (a passively-gathered entropy pool kept in a ring buffer).
One of the biggest benefits of ASLR, heap protection, and stack smash protection is the rapid exposure of security flaws: any attempt has an overwhelming probability of exposing the attack, directing eyes toward the bug. ASLR, double-free, and canary protections often trigger on harmless errors which allow the program to continue running under normal conditions, aren't an attack, and happen during normal work; ASLR is the least tended to do this (because let's face it: if you miss a JMP by a byte, you miss it by a hundred miles), while the other two similar guards are very prone to cause crashes when you fuck up. Likewise, banning the mapping of memory that is simultaneously writable and executable causes errant writes to do this a lot (and makes some exploits flat-out impossible, instead of impossibly unlikely).
I've solved poverty, but it's not like I can just walk into the House and make them listen to my plan. What am I supposed to do, form an economic committee and hold Q&A time?
John McCain wanted a war. He's going to war with the NFL. Black, Korean, whatever, some weird not-white people twisted his broken arms and he's going to get payback on *somebody*.
"A natural next step would be to add haptic feedback allowing users to touch virtual objects. Users could pick up physical items and computer generated ones at the same time while still thinking both are real. Adding the ability to walk around would expand one’s sense of presence as well. This allows individuals to explore computer generated environments further immersing them into the experience." - Aristotle
In fairness I don't think the Panthers belong with the others in this list.
But they, and the charicature that the masses imagine for them, are what comes to mind.
Progressives don't actually want to change the problems they whine about. Rather, they want cushy gubmint-funded non-profiteer jobs "managing" the ill effects thereof.
Not really. Mostly they're incompetent whiners and attention whores. We've attached the concept of "Progress" to the concept of "Progressive Politics", and attached the idea of change to progress, and then attached the idea that any action that creates or demands change from a perceived problem state to a new state is progressive and thus good. We've also connected backwards movement to being bad, thus creating a negative image of conservative politics. We've then attached these ideas to various groups, creating a hilarious narrative that doesn't follow reality, but lampoons it well enough to appear to.
I prefer hard-line, steady, directed effort. Social injustice? Don't whine about it; just refuse to accept it. Martin Luther King didn't whine; he stood up and told people that the world is sick, and that one day he hopes we can come together, and that we should do great things. Jessie Jackson stands up and tells people that the institutions hate black people, that the white man is abusing them, that they need to fight back--not come together. The great speakers bring us together; we should only come to blows when confronted with attacks, at which point the great speakers will have brought many allies to our sides.
Today, it's just people complaining that life isn't fair, screaming about nasty things people say and do, crying about injustice, and shouting that we should push and push and push until something topples over and people do something. It's not very inspirational.
Of course I see myself, in my imagined speeches, as more of a Martin Luther King or Winston Churchill. I am too much of a sociopath to empathize with this concept of different people being different; it's just people to me. I haven't invested much in categorizing people that way; instead I categorize social backgrounds and geographical subcultures. I know the behavioral differences between black people in America--in a particular city--and in Jamaica or Britain, or other American cities, or white people in the same place. Much of the time, these differences are irrelevant: in socioeconomic issues, everyone's a target, and I don't much care that CERTAIN PEOPLE are actively targeted; I want to make ALL PEOPLE more resistant to such targeting, because I see the issue as human behavior in general, including the volatile diversity of mixed subcultures.
Pretty much just a subset of overbearing progressive nutjobs who don't operate within reality.
You have hyper-conservatives, you have the forward-thinking folks, and then you have crazy progressives who want to change everything if the wind blows. Researchers and scientists are supposed to sit in the middle: let's learn more, examine it, toy with it, and then apply it. Hyper-conservatives are afraid of any movement; while progressives are of the "we dropped a pin and it bounced left instead of right! Everything we know about pins is wrong! They bounce left! Reorient the whole world to protect against sharp things on the left side of everything!" attitude.
Social progressives often find fault in individual behavior because it offends them, and they want to play nanny and tell everyone to behave nicely. They then target huge platforms and demand sweeping changes and social shame. They demand immediate resolution. They want it by any means necessary, so they lie, cheat, verbally assault, and generally act like nuisances. Thus nobody likes them.
When a black man walks into a courtroom to testify about workplace misconduct and wrongful termination, you don't see a discriminatory employer and a wronged man; you see a whiner who got fired because he's a lazy negro who's never done an honest hour's work in his life. It's never Martin Luther King, Jr, walking up to the stand; it's always the Black Panthers, the Trayvon rioters, Jessie Jackson, hood drug dealers, and hood gang members coming to complain about "The Man" because they need something to complain about. That's who you see standing before you.
That's what progressives do: They make real issues illegitimate by associating a group of people with a bunch of whiny babies. They legitimize the narrative that these people--femenists, gays, blacks--whine and cry about everything, and that their grievances are invented sob stories not rooted in reality.
You don't win a war by throwing a tantrum and dropping bombs all over the place. You take metered steps, pick your battles, and work your way along. That's what the ACLU is for: it provides lawyers when people are discriminated against, lending them the power to fight back. You don't stand around crying about it; you simply refuse to tolerate it.
Yes but will it also be able to analyze composition? I don't want a temperature probe; I already have that. I want to scan my soil and discover the nitrogen content, phosphor content, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it was easier when I had to figure out what all this "daemon -x $DAEMON -p $PIDFILE" shit was, somehow translate that to the actual command being run, modify the init.d script, run it, try to catch an error, then go and put everything back the way it was and try again.
WTF is this "systemd journal $brokenservice"?
That says 900 lumens at 15 watts for that CFL.
Categorically false. Peoples's abilities demonstrably change with interest and motivation. Stephen Hawking wasn't some genius kid until he became disabled; he decided he didn't want to be a useless lump, and that the only tool he had was his mind, and that he wanted to use it in the most spectacular way possible because anything mundane would fail to set him apart, so he took the big subject: quantum physics and the pioneering study of the universe itself at the most basic level. Hard work and determination made him what he is today; hard work and determination were fueled by a meaningful interest in the only thing he could do that would meet his goals.
It's even demonstrable that the entire human race functions in this way. The four-minute mile was broken in 1957, long considered physically impossible for a human; two months later it had been broken by two more individuals, and within the year it was broken by dozens of people. It's now the standard for distance runners--once considered impossible, it's now considered a thing normal people can do if they try hard enough.
Olympic records are regularly broken, as are mental records for internal computation and memory, by leaps and bounds, every single year. Further, every such record that's broken becomes a new baseline: the human race goes from no individual being able to achieve these feats to all of the same individuals achieving them as a matter of course, just by being told they're attainable.
In the general case--excluding the specifically handicapped--human ability is approximately level. It has been studied and proven time and again. Experts have been synthesized from non-experts, even old people--elderly folks in their 60s have been bestowed with incredible problem-solving and memory prowess by teaching them techniques new to them, allowing them to grasp and analyze things like never before, and to perform at a level of a brilliant college student. These people appeared to reverse their mental aging but, in truth, they simply became experts in analytical thought and mnemonics: they studied, practiced, and applied mental tactics so as to function on the level of a bright, young student.
That particular experiment was interesting: it showed that such people did not improve in tasks where these tactics weren't applicable--they didn't become smarter, and their brains didn't get stronger from mental exercise--but that they did learn and routinely apply the mental skills taught to them with fantastic results, when applicable. In other words: they were still normal people of normal intellect; yet, in some subset of tasks, they appeared much more intelligent than when they started.
Studies of the brain structure of intelligent people shows no difference from normal, non-damaged people. Occasionally we see interesting things on fMRIs--synesthetes light up all over the place, and mnemonists and skilled problem solvers occasionally utilize some facilities more heavily--but the great differences are always psychological. From interviews with synesthetes with astounding memories, we have learned to imitate their involuntary thought processes, synthesizing our own astounding memories. Likewise, strong problem-solvers have divulged intricate thought processes which we've generalized and applied on minds of normal intelligence.
In the end, it comes down to effort, and effort comes down to interest: you simply won't study what you're not interested in. It takes some directed focus to memorize something; and you don't learn anything if you don't remember it--if you breeze through a math text while thinking about video games, you'll forget everything you read. One study tactic occasionally professed is to make uninteresting material more meaningful by relating it to something that does interest you--for example, geometry to cooking, especially if you like to bake--while the better-known study strategies explain what to do once something is interesting enough to study--survey it, write questions, read and recit
Not the point, but interesting. You know the electronics in that package decay from heat and electrostatic material migration. If the CFL lasts a few months more than the LED, the CFL is a big savings win; if the LED lasts almost as long, it's a savings win.
There is a belief that memorization is bad, and that learning requires understanding. That is to say: school system administrators, educators, and teachers have accepted memorization as a terrible thing, and are determined to make students "learn" and "understand". This goes back to the progressive education movement by John Dewey, which came after faculty learning was debunked--we discovered the brain is not a muscle and cannot be made stronger by exercising the various mental faculties (memory, language, etc.)--and transitioned to a "student-focused" model in which students would "experience" rather than study from textbooks (i.e. mix vinegar and baking soda, grow plants from seeds, and call that "science education").
I am implying that you cannot understand what you do not know, and you cannot know what you cannot remember. To remember is to know; to understand is to associate something you know to something else you know and synthesize their mutual impact. Likewise, to make meaningful is to make memorable: the more you remember, know, and understand, the more you can come to remember, know, and understand.
Taking all this together, it stands to reason that any technique for loading more facts into your head, for better associating them, and for better understanding their implications would improve your intelligence. If you can increase the amount of knowledge you can take in and retain, you can learn faster; if you have learned more, you have more to draw from to apply to new problems.
In short: to process information and derive abstract representations, you must have a basis of comparison to associate that information from. To produce exceptional output, you must associate new information with information you already possess, and synthesize additional information. To invent new things, you associate a problem with all related information you know about, and possibly discover that some information is related in a way nobody else in the world has ever considered, and produce a new method or device which reflects this relation.
The more you know and the more thoroughly you know it, the more intelligent you are. Humans are not limited in capacity such that one person can know more things more thoroughly than another person, except that one person may suffer a gross mental defect. We know these defects as autism, as retardation, as physical brain damage, and as dementia; and even then, the same techniques applied by non-defective minds can raise the minds of many defective individuals exactly to the same level. Autistics and the brain damage particularly have shown many cases where they can be trained to act as fully-functional adults, so much so that nobody can recognize their mental handicap--and so much so that it is no longer a handicap in practice, although their experience is certainly different from the unhandicapped.
Mnemonics *is* a good reference for all that. It's well-studied that older people don't lose their memory capacity unless demented; they can learn new problem solving processes, new memory skills, and new routines. People in their 60s become exactly as functional as people in their 20s when taught mnemonics: their memories are as strong as younger people. So do low and high IQ people.
K. Anders Ericsson has written books and research papers on experts, and explained what makes people experts. In short: it's how they study and practice, not how much time they spend on it or how smart they are. Kenneth L. Higbee has some interesting things to say on the topic of memory, if you can stomach a Ph.D. holder and a mountain of references. Joshua Foer has referenced Ericsson, and John Dewey, but not Higbee. Many people have noticed that simply learning more makes you more intelligent: that having more tools to approach any problem gives you a stronger ability to solve that problem. FMRI studies have even shown little to no difference between scientific geniuses and your average dumbass.
Anyone who applies themselves can do gre
It wasn't precision. I can do that precision, sometimes; I am not skilled with that.
On one hand, the Internet makes it easier for pedophiles to find small children, who are often Internet-savvy in the same way they are get-out-of-mommy-and-daddy's-sight-to-do-something-naughty savvy: we all grew up on slipping one by our parents to go play with our friends and get ourselves into trouble, and the Internet is one more tool to do that, and adults on the Internet can interact with children without being noticed at large.
On the other, I would much rather chance the occasional small child get buttraped now and then than ensure with regular frequency that said small child will grow to a young adult and commit a largely non-harmful crime of stupidity (music swapping, a 16-year-old e-mailing around pictures of himself getting a blowjob from a 14-year-old, etc.) and be exposed to state-sanction buttrape in a juvenile or adult correctional facility for a few years on end.
Delaying harm is not protecting from harm.
Uh. 9W 800 lumen LED vs 14W 800 lumen CFL. That's 27 cents per month if the bulb is on 12 hours per day; with my 6 hour per day cycle on my longest-running bulbs, it's not even 1kWh difference.
The entire savings is overshadowed by how long a CFL ballast lasts versus an LED ballast.
The article is misleading as all fuck.
Motivation is hormonal: extra testosterone will lead a man to develop more as a jock, trying to impress women, perhaps going onto the football team, whatever. Different balances of various hormones and different sensitivities of neural receptors will, likewise, lead a man to seek to impress his peers (and women) by feats of intelligence; or lead a man to seek any other thing he wants--not just women--by sheer exertion of effort.
In other words: shit is hard, and your mood-influencing biochemical factors will manipulate how much you value an outcome, and thus how much effort you're willing to invest. More value means more effort, and more effort means better results. That's motivation.
Accepting that and then quickly setting it aside as assumption, we don't get "genetic factors for intelligence". Everyone is exactly as intelligent as a human, unless they're brain damaged by disease or defect. Any child, any adult, properly motivated, with proper practice and effort, can be a genius. It is just that simple.
The human memory works by association. Some folks have obscenely good natural memories; they often develop strategies or possess involuntary synesthesias which associate information in unusual ways--numbers to shapes and ideas, sounds to colors, and so on. Others achieve and even surpass the same memories as these people by employing mnemonics strategies to mimic and improve upon these natural talents and defects (synesthesia can be interesting and useful, but also debilitating--a strong synesthete can get a lot of visual imagery when reading, and thus not understand wtf is being said).
Because the human memory works by association, it becomes easier to know more when you know a lot already. If I were to teach your kids hard-core botany, they would be confused as living hell; but I could teach them to grow plants from seed, and teach them the same botanical principles. I could teach them how a plant seed germinates by releasing water-soluble enzymes to break down starch into sugars, illustrating this by breaking open a grain of flour and corn and by growing a seed. I could teach them about the plant's nutrient needs and biochemical processes, showing how it changes colors and becomes sick as I remove various nutrients from its soil or hydroponics feed. They would see and understand the plant, and come to know about its basic processes.
Just as I could use a graphical and demonstrative guide to teach your kids complex biological concepts, I could use their new knowledge of those concepts to teach them deeper and more complex topics. Similarly, I could use your worldly knowledge to teach you much more complex things--they would make sense to you because of all the things you already know. This is how memory works; and learning is memory, for you cannot understand what you don't know, and you cannot know what you don't remember.
The question is: are your kids interested in the growth of seeds? If so, are they interested in all this technical bullshit about amylase enzymes and photosynthesis and the potassium cycle and nitrogen fermentation? If they aren't sufficiently motivated, it will be hard to get them to learn; that doesn't mean they're stupid, but that they don't fucking care.
Building on these base concepts, we have mnemonics (the mind palace, the mnemonic major system, the Person-Action-Object system, acrostics, acronyms) and study methods (SQ3R, SQW3R). By using study methods like SQW3R, a student can strongly learn new textbook information in less time.
The method of SQW3R is to Survey, Question, Write, Read, Recite, Review (would that we could reverse those last two--Survey, Question, Write, Read, Review, Recite; but Recite before Review, or forget what you once knew): survey the topics, headings, the summaries, the graphics; create questions from this material; write down questions and minor notes about what you know and want to know; read, considering the questions as you read;
Highway driving, which is less complex than city driving, has proved easy enough for self-driving cars, but busy downtown streets—where cars and pedestrians jockey for space and behave in confusing and surprising ways—are more problematic.
This is the justification given for building an urban obstacle course to test self-driving cars: they have trouble driving in the city.
I'm pretty sure Google has been near-exclusively testing in busy cities, not cruising on the highways. The car might go on the highway to get to another city or to navigate from area to area, but it spends a fuckload of time cruising city streets. Highway driving data is meaningless to Google, as it's trivially small and provides little opportunity to improve the car; they collect that as a matter of course, and then collect rigorous and diverse data on the complexities of scuttling around in the city.
The Nobel Peace Prize is the high-society American Idol competition: it is airy, mindless fluff for morons and retards who happen to have heads filled with impressive but trivial-to-acquire knowledge.
Watercooler effect? Scientists are more productive with a watercooler in their office?
Whoa whoa, hold on there! Does that make sense? At 15 cents per kWh, 12 hours per day lighting, these bulbs save $2.25/mo over incandescent lighting. That's over $25/year, minus the $10 to buy them. They tend to burn out within the year, though; CFLs have the same issue, and it never actually went away: tons of hours of run time, but not many cycles.
I have occupancy sensors. Some of my lights run 6 hours per day; the rest run rarely. My overall lighting savings is on the order of $2-$3/mo for my entire house of many bulbs. Of course they last longer.
Replacing CFLs with LEDs is a bad deal. Wait for the CFLs to burn out. Incandescent bulbs... put to use in the winter, then recycle (glass, aluminum) when they burn out. LED savings over CFL bulbs is dubious, but they're easier to handle and they put out better quality light than a CFL.
So do the editors's salaries.
White LED lamps emit a bright white light, are long-lasting and energy-efficient
"White LED lamps emit a bright white lamp. White LED lamps are long-lasting. White LED lamps energy-efficient."
You need a conjunction after the comma, or a comma before the final conjunction and a verb following it.
Google is all like, "Look at our shit navigating busy downtown San Francisco streets, dealing with insanity at intersections, crazy drivers, pedestrians, traffic signals, poorly-marked lanes..." They provided a video presentation on the whole thing.
Government is like, "Those fancy new electric cars can self-drive on the highway at 3AM when there's nobody on the road and the lanes are painted in radar-reflective bright white, but they have a lot of trouble navigating when there's a stop sign or another driver on the road!"
It's Dragongate all over again.
Short-minded, rigid, unable to cope with change, unable to devise processes.
ASLR changes the security issue from "trivial, undetectable remote access or privilege escalation" to "trivial, deafeningly loud denial-of-service."
I can write shellcode that hijacks a function, spawns a thread, and creates a controlled jump back to an earlier function, simulating a successful return and allowing the program to continue--a separate thread downloads and mmap()s in a shared object, which provides all the exploit functions without even spawning a new process, even so far as to open a temporary file and then unlink() it and fill it and mmap() the fd so that malware code never goes into a bluntly visible file. This strategy allows httpd or proftpd or any other target with a remote code execution flaw to continue running uninterrupted, while itself hosting a malicious agent.
If the program spawns fork()ed copies, I'd have to repeatedly crash the program--I'd return to the incorrect location, due to not knowing the stack or library or anonymous segment or heap or main executable base addresses--as I chewed iteratively through millions of connections. This is incredibly visible: dmesg shows millions of segfaults, and a smart HIDS could delay and restrict connections from addresses which had connected (initiated) to any socket handled by the crashing process (parent-child fork()-without-execve() relationship). 64-bit systems take this up to the order of 10^30, an infeasible number of attempts even if the system's HIDS and administrator are inattentive; while programs which replace workers after hundreds of executions are facing independent randomized events.
ASLR turns failed security and perfect compromise into less-than-perfect security and less-than-perfect compromise. The cost is effectively null: the moment there's an unused CPU nanosecond, the system recovers from the slowdowns imposed by ASLR. It's on the order of pulling an additional number out of memory (a passively-gathered entropy pool kept in a ring buffer).
One of the biggest benefits of ASLR, heap protection, and stack smash protection is the rapid exposure of security flaws: any attempt has an overwhelming probability of exposing the attack, directing eyes toward the bug. ASLR, double-free, and canary protections often trigger on harmless errors which allow the program to continue running under normal conditions, aren't an attack, and happen during normal work; ASLR is the least tended to do this (because let's face it: if you miss a JMP by a byte, you miss it by a hundred miles), while the other two similar guards are very prone to cause crashes when you fuck up. Likewise, banning the mapping of memory that is simultaneously writable and executable causes errant writes to do this a lot (and makes some exploits flat-out impossible, instead of impossibly unlikely).
I've solved poverty, but it's not like I can just walk into the House and make them listen to my plan. What am I supposed to do, form an economic committee and hold Q&A time?
John McCain wanted a war. He's going to war with the NFL. Black, Korean, whatever, some weird not-white people twisted his broken arms and he's going to get payback on *somebody*.
"A natural next step would be to add haptic feedback allowing users to touch virtual objects. Users could pick up physical items and computer generated ones at the same time while still thinking both are real. Adding the ability to walk around would expand one’s sense of presence as well. This allows individuals to explore computer generated environments further immersing them into the experience." - Aristotle
In fairness I don't think the Panthers belong with the others in this list.
But they, and the charicature that the masses imagine for them, are what comes to mind.
Progressives don't actually want to change the problems they whine about. Rather, they want cushy gubmint-funded non-profiteer jobs "managing" the ill effects thereof.
Not really. Mostly they're incompetent whiners and attention whores. We've attached the concept of "Progress" to the concept of "Progressive Politics", and attached the idea of change to progress, and then attached the idea that any action that creates or demands change from a perceived problem state to a new state is progressive and thus good. We've also connected backwards movement to being bad, thus creating a negative image of conservative politics. We've then attached these ideas to various groups, creating a hilarious narrative that doesn't follow reality, but lampoons it well enough to appear to.
I prefer hard-line, steady, directed effort. Social injustice? Don't whine about it; just refuse to accept it. Martin Luther King didn't whine; he stood up and told people that the world is sick, and that one day he hopes we can come together, and that we should do great things. Jessie Jackson stands up and tells people that the institutions hate black people, that the white man is abusing them, that they need to fight back--not come together. The great speakers bring us together; we should only come to blows when confronted with attacks, at which point the great speakers will have brought many allies to our sides.
Today, it's just people complaining that life isn't fair, screaming about nasty things people say and do, crying about injustice, and shouting that we should push and push and push until something topples over and people do something. It's not very inspirational.
Of course I see myself, in my imagined speeches, as more of a Martin Luther King or Winston Churchill. I am too much of a sociopath to empathize with this concept of different people being different; it's just people to me. I haven't invested much in categorizing people that way; instead I categorize social backgrounds and geographical subcultures. I know the behavioral differences between black people in America--in a particular city--and in Jamaica or Britain, or other American cities, or white people in the same place. Much of the time, these differences are irrelevant: in socioeconomic issues, everyone's a target, and I don't much care that CERTAIN PEOPLE are actively targeted; I want to make ALL PEOPLE more resistant to such targeting, because I see the issue as human behavior in general, including the volatile diversity of mixed subcultures.
Because it's just women being bitches as usual.
Pretty much just a subset of overbearing progressive nutjobs who don't operate within reality.
You have hyper-conservatives, you have the forward-thinking folks, and then you have crazy progressives who want to change everything if the wind blows. Researchers and scientists are supposed to sit in the middle: let's learn more, examine it, toy with it, and then apply it. Hyper-conservatives are afraid of any movement; while progressives are of the "we dropped a pin and it bounced left instead of right! Everything we know about pins is wrong! They bounce left! Reorient the whole world to protect against sharp things on the left side of everything!" attitude.
Social progressives often find fault in individual behavior because it offends them, and they want to play nanny and tell everyone to behave nicely. They then target huge platforms and demand sweeping changes and social shame. They demand immediate resolution. They want it by any means necessary, so they lie, cheat, verbally assault, and generally act like nuisances. Thus nobody likes them.
When a black man walks into a courtroom to testify about workplace misconduct and wrongful termination, you don't see a discriminatory employer and a wronged man; you see a whiner who got fired because he's a lazy negro who's never done an honest hour's work in his life. It's never Martin Luther King, Jr, walking up to the stand; it's always the Black Panthers, the Trayvon rioters, Jessie Jackson, hood drug dealers, and hood gang members coming to complain about "The Man" because they need something to complain about. That's who you see standing before you.
That's what progressives do: They make real issues illegitimate by associating a group of people with a bunch of whiny babies. They legitimize the narrative that these people--femenists, gays, blacks--whine and cry about everything, and that their grievances are invented sob stories not rooted in reality.
You don't win a war by throwing a tantrum and dropping bombs all over the place. You take metered steps, pick your battles, and work your way along. That's what the ACLU is for: it provides lawyers when people are discriminated against, lending them the power to fight back. You don't stand around crying about it; you simply refuse to tolerate it.
Yes but will it also be able to analyze composition? I don't want a temperature probe; I already have that. I want to scan my soil and discover the nitrogen content, phosphor content, etc.
Speaking of Space Invaders.. http://www.shiftylook.com/comi...