Free speech means exactly what it says--say what you want to say! It doesn't ensure that anyone has to listen to you, has to agree, or has to care.
Yes, I agree that the right to talk does not mean the right to be listened to, however I think that the right to free speech has a corresponding duty to evaluate the speech of others. I believe that freedom is worth nothing if it is only treated as freedom to do nothing. Freedom of speech was originally considered so important because it was the only way the people that make up a country can share ideas and hold government accountable, but this value is lost if people don't listen to each other attentively and apply critical evaluation to what they hear.
You're talking about slavery, or at least something akin to the fascist system in Heinlein's starship troopers
Not at all. How can one have a right, if that right is not supported by someone? Somebody's right is somebody else's duty. Free speech is a special case, as the corresponding duty does not affect the ability of the other to carry out their right, only the effectiveness of it. But to apply this to other areas; The government's right to collect taxes relies upon their duty to spend the money wisely. You right to drive corresponds to your duty to exercise care and attentiveness when doing so. Your right to own a firearm corresponds to your duty to use it wisely. Your right to earn money corresponds to your duty to be productive to whoever pays you. Hell, your right to not be thrown in jail corresponds to your duty to not break the law. Free speech is no different, except that the duty is easily forgotten because people think that "well nobody is hurt if I sit on my couch and watch TV my whole life". This is not true. If everyone is apathetic, then everyone is hurt.
Interesting, you're attempting to censor twitter? While I agree with the end, I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that he, like you, has the right to free speech.
I'm not pointing this out to defend his right to free speech, but more to point out the flaw in the current Western perception of "rights" and their role in society. Everyone gets all hot and bothered about their "rights", but I personally believe that each right has a corresponding duty, the execution of which earns you the corresponding right. You want a right to free speech? Your duty is to listen honestly to others' opinions and exercise your right to speak responsibly. You want the right to free movement? Your duty is to assist others in their endeavours, should you be able. You want the right to vote? Your duty is to actively assess the society you live in and make an informed decision regarding the suitability of the candidate you vote for.
You want the right to democracy? Your duty is to open your eyes and recognise when it is under attack, and from whom.
Wow, that's a big ass rant over a twitter post. Perhaps I *do* get on my soapbox a little too often...
Yes, but there is empirical evidence of highly parallel preferences among males that indicate the presence of common perceptions regarding what constitutes beauty.
The fact that there are no empirical standards for beauty is not due to the absence of any common standards for beauty (albeit not universally applicable), rather our inability to represent the metrics of the mind using mathematical or linguistic representations.
Duh, look at their distribution you triple imbecile. The more random numbers you use in your 10 series the narrower it will get, which proves my point.
Narrower at a median band with no data.
If you get some noise, that is non-zero readings, then there's no limit to how good a result you can get by averaging an infinity of similar sensors (which obviously is impractical). Noise here serves as dithering, that allows you to catch the signal even if it's buried deep down the noise.
Look here, I'm going to say this very slowly and clearly: LAPTOP. SENSORS. WILL. GET. NO SIGNAL. Not a little, not below the noise threshold, not an eensy weensy bit. NONE. NADA. ZIP. They are not sensitive enough. Get me the specs sheet on them as well as on seismic monitors, otherwise STFU. That has been my only point in this whole debate: That no matter how good your amplification and filtration is, you cannot create a signal where there IS NONE.
Yeap, they toned down the aggression a little to make it a bit easier for everyone to swallow. Eventually they get the inch they want and the pot rises a few degrees.
I'm not saying trust the government, I'm saying trust neither. And not every corporation is in bed with the government, but they are *all* motivated by the sole aim of separating you from your money.
You can boycott a company hey? Try boycotting the fraction of your tax dollars that are spent funding an unpopular, unproductive and wasteful war that has been fully privatised. In other words, try boycotting Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR.
Why? Because government has an entire intelligence agency at its disposal and regulatory control over the media? Wake up call: In the western world, for all intents and purposes Big government == Big corporate.
Hahahahahahahahaha. That's funny because you seem to be serious. lol, seriosuly man, pick up a book on signal processing basics or something.
Noise is cancelled using lowpass or highpass filters around the signal. Take 10 series of 10 random numbers each. Average the first one in each series, the second one in each series, the third one in each series to get the "average series". What do you get? A set of 10 more random numbers. Unless there is already a common bias in the series (otherwise known as an analogue signal), averaging does nothing to white noise. This whole discussion is based on my assertion that there is no such signal, as laptop accelerometers will not pick up seismic vibrations.
Oh fear not, I got your assumption that accelerometers give 0 readings when idle. I just question it, because I doubt it does (and I wouldn't know how to verify this, and if you really do know that I'd like to know how).
Install a data logger for your laptop if you have an accelerometer. Put your laptop in the next room. Jump up and down. See if your laptop picks up a signal. Now recognise that a seismic sensor would be able to pick up your jumping up and down if you were 2 houses away. However, you're right, I don't know this for sure. If you think that they are sensitive enough, then before you reply, go do some research on the sensitivity of seismic monitoring equipment and the accelerometers in laptops. If I'm wrong, prove it. Otherwise, STFU.
I think that this is a foreshadowing of things to come. This is an indication of big corporates' desire to gain control or influence over not only the software that we use by turning into a subscription model (SaaS or whatever buzzword/buzzacro it is) but also ensuring that whatever we create using it is controllable by the providers of the software.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, SaaS providers such as Google may decide that they will muscle in on user data created using Google Apps with copyright tricks like this.
Just because the first attempt resulted in a big company backing down does not mean the heat in the pot hasn't risen a few degrees for the proverbial frog.
If we assume that these sensors always detect something
My whole point was that they won't. Accelerometers in laptops will register 0 (as in the discrete digital zero value) when a seismic event occurs, making interpolative data extrapolation techniques impossible.
If what you are trying to detect is a reading on something that is beneath the Nyquist threshold for your sensors, then it matters not how many readings, or how many sub-sample deviations you can collect, you'll still end up with nothing but noise. Noise averaging does *not* work the way you describe, because white-noise signals averaged do not produce lower noise, they produce more white noise. If there is a signal with a very low SNR in those multiple streams, you cannot reduce the SNR just by averaging the streams, you have to use other methods of signature analysis, which do not apply unless you actually *do* have a signal in the noise, which, as I stated at the very beginning, you will not with laptop accelerometers detecting seismic vibrations.
Given that you completely missed my point, I'm going to assume that your strength is not reading comprehension, and guess that it is math. Thus, I leave it to you to work out what the average is of one thousand 0 values. Your math skill will need to be marginally better than your reading comprehension skills to work that out.
Lucky Imaging uses multiple high accuracy devices that are accurate enough to capture the granularity required, but are otherwise limited by extraneous transient factors. By using multiple devices the chance of achieving an optimum reading vis a vis those extraneous factors is maximised. This situational opportunism is why it is called "Lucky Imaging", and it cannot be applied to the scenario where the device itself is not capable of making the reading necessary, even under optimum conditions.
Also, I'm not entirely sure how you thought that my example of a "cheap VGA webcam" was applicable to observatory quality low light CCDs mounted in an assembly the size of a shipping container.
1,000 laptop accelerometers cannot do what a single seismic sensor can, because they are orders of magnitude less sensitive. You can't take 1,000 sensors, add the data together, and say it is 1,000 times more effective than a single device. If the sensor granularity is not sufficient to detect what you are trying to detect, then one or one million will not be able to detect your subject. It'd be like using one cheap VGA webam to try to photograph surface topography on Pluto, and when that didn't work, trying the same thing by using 1,000 cheap VGA webcams together.
I'm appalled at how after 10 years of dealing with regular every day users, just how recalcitrant open source nerds are in failing to recognise basic behavioural patterns that just won't change.
I agree, not backing up is stupid. But as an IT admin, ensuring all of my users' data is safe is my job. It'd be like a security firm hired to manage a company's building security saying "dumb staff, if they aren't second dan black belt karate masters with a 9mm tucked into their belt I have no sympathy if they get mugged in the lobby".
Wow! That's a great solution, now all I need to do is give my Mum a crash course in command line usage, file ownership manage and UNIX file permissions! She'll have our family albums up in no time!
Perhaps I'm just a nutty conspiracy theorist, but the fact that the mainstream media has not covered it bears no small significance to me. I think that the number of places it has been reported though means that the event actually did happen. The only news source I can find with it mentioned is the tiniest of footnotes in this article: http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7996749
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I agree that the right to talk does not mean the right to be listened to, however I think that the right to free speech has a corresponding duty to evaluate the speech of others. I believe that freedom is worth nothing if it is only treated as freedom to do nothing. Freedom of speech was originally considered so important because it was the only way the people that make up a country can share ideas and hold government accountable, but this value is lost if people don't listen to each other attentively and apply critical evaluation to what they hear.
Not at all. How can one have a right, if that right is not supported by someone? Somebody's right is somebody else's duty. Free speech is a special case, as the corresponding duty does not affect the ability of the other to carry out their right, only the effectiveness of it. But to apply this to other areas; The government's right to collect taxes relies upon their duty to spend the money wisely. You right to drive corresponds to your duty to exercise care and attentiveness when doing so. Your right to own a firearm corresponds to your duty to use it wisely. Your right to earn money corresponds to your duty to be productive to whoever pays you. Hell, your right to not be thrown in jail corresponds to your duty to not break the law. Free speech is no different, except that the duty is easily forgotten because people think that "well nobody is hurt if I sit on my couch and watch TV my whole life". This is not true. If everyone is apathetic, then everyone is hurt.
Thank you for pointing out my point.
Hey! I'm 27 you insensit... oh.
Interesting, you're attempting to censor twitter? While I agree with the end, I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that he, like you, has the right to free speech.
I'm not pointing this out to defend his right to free speech, but more to point out the flaw in the current Western perception of "rights" and their role in society. Everyone gets all hot and bothered about their "rights", but I personally believe that each right has a corresponding duty, the execution of which earns you the corresponding right. You want a right to free speech? Your duty is to listen honestly to others' opinions and exercise your right to speak responsibly. You want the right to free movement? Your duty is to assist others in their endeavours, should you be able. You want the right to vote? Your duty is to actively assess the society you live in and make an informed decision regarding the suitability of the candidate you vote for.
You want the right to democracy? Your duty is to open your eyes and recognise when it is under attack, and from whom.
Wow, that's a big ass rant over a twitter post. Perhaps I *do* get on my soapbox a little too often...
Yes, but there is empirical evidence of highly parallel preferences among males that indicate the presence of common perceptions regarding what constitutes beauty.
The fact that there are no empirical standards for beauty is not due to the absence of any common standards for beauty (albeit not universally applicable), rather our inability to represent the metrics of the mind using mathematical or linguistic representations.
Narrower at a median band with no data.
Look here, I'm going to say this very slowly and clearly: LAPTOP. SENSORS. WILL. GET. NO SIGNAL. Not a little, not below the noise threshold, not an eensy weensy bit. NONE. NADA. ZIP. They are not sensitive enough. Get me the specs sheet on them as well as on seismic monitors, otherwise STFU. That has been my only point in this whole debate: That no matter how good your amplification and filtration is, you cannot create a signal where there IS NONE.
Yeap, they toned down the aggression a little to make it a bit easier for everyone to swallow. Eventually they get the inch they want and the pot rises a few degrees.
I'm not saying trust the government, I'm saying trust neither. And not every corporation is in bed with the government, but they are *all* motivated by the sole aim of separating you from your money.
You can boycott a company hey? Try boycotting the fraction of your tax dollars that are spent funding an unpopular, unproductive and wasteful war that has been fully privatised. In other words, try boycotting Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR.
Why? Because government has an entire intelligence agency at its disposal and regulatory control over the media? Wake up call: In the western world, for all intents and purposes Big government == Big corporate.
Noise is cancelled using lowpass or highpass filters around the signal. Take 10 series of 10 random numbers each. Average the first one in each series, the second one in each series, the third one in each series to get the "average series". What do you get? A set of 10 more random numbers. Unless there is already a common bias in the series (otherwise known as an analogue signal), averaging does nothing to white noise. This whole discussion is based on my assertion that there is no such signal, as laptop accelerometers will not pick up seismic vibrations.
Install a data logger for your laptop if you have an accelerometer. Put your laptop in the next room. Jump up and down. See if your laptop picks up a signal. Now recognise that a seismic sensor would be able to pick up your jumping up and down if you were 2 houses away. However, you're right, I don't know this for sure. If you think that they are sensitive enough, then before you reply, go do some research on the sensitivity of seismic monitoring equipment and the accelerometers in laptops. If I'm wrong, prove it. Otherwise, STFU.
I knew it was a typo, but this is Slashdot, so take it like a man^H^H^H geek. Mistakes like that will get you called, that's the deal here.
Getting a quote wrong and then urging me to "Remember this" is kinda ironic.
I think that this is a foreshadowing of things to come. This is an indication of big corporates' desire to gain control or influence over not only the software that we use by turning into a subscription model (SaaS or whatever buzzword/buzzacro it is) but also ensuring that whatever we create using it is controllable by the providers of the software.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, SaaS providers such as Google may decide that they will muscle in on user data created using Google Apps with copyright tricks like this.
Just because the first attempt resulted in a big company backing down does not mean the heat in the pot hasn't risen a few degrees for the proverbial frog.
Nothing says "I Love You" like a restraining order.
My whole point was that they won't. Accelerometers in laptops will register 0 (as in the discrete digital zero value) when a seismic event occurs, making interpolative data extrapolation techniques impossible.
If what you are trying to detect is a reading on something that is beneath the Nyquist threshold for your sensors, then it matters not how many readings, or how many sub-sample deviations you can collect, you'll still end up with nothing but noise. Noise averaging does *not* work the way you describe, because white-noise signals averaged do not produce lower noise, they produce more white noise. If there is a signal with a very low SNR in those multiple streams, you cannot reduce the SNR just by averaging the streams, you have to use other methods of signature analysis, which do not apply unless you actually *do* have a signal in the noise, which, as I stated at the very beginning, you will not with laptop accelerometers detecting seismic vibrations.
Given that you completely missed my point, I'm going to assume that your strength is not reading comprehension, and guess that it is math. Thus, I leave it to you to work out what the average is of one thousand 0 values. Your math skill will need to be marginally better than your reading comprehension skills to work that out.
Not relevant.
Lucky Imaging uses multiple high accuracy devices that are accurate enough to capture the granularity required, but are otherwise limited by extraneous transient factors. By using multiple devices the chance of achieving an optimum reading vis a vis those extraneous factors is maximised. This situational opportunism is why it is called "Lucky Imaging", and it cannot be applied to the scenario where the device itself is not capable of making the reading necessary, even under optimum conditions.
Also, I'm not entirely sure how you thought that my example of a "cheap VGA webcam" was applicable to observatory quality low light CCDs mounted in an assembly the size of a shipping container.
Personally, I think this is a dud idea.
1,000 laptop accelerometers cannot do what a single seismic sensor can, because they are orders of magnitude less sensitive. You can't take 1,000 sensors, add the data together, and say it is 1,000 times more effective than a single device. If the sensor granularity is not sufficient to detect what you are trying to detect, then one or one million will not be able to detect your subject. It'd be like using one cheap VGA webam to try to photograph surface topography on Pluto, and when that didn't work, trying the same thing by using 1,000 cheap VGA webcams together.
Stupid.
You fail sarcasm. Totally. You could say that you have failed to the max.
I'm appalled at how after 10 years of dealing with regular every day users, just how recalcitrant open source nerds are in failing to recognise basic behavioural patterns that just won't change.
I agree, not backing up is stupid. But as an IT admin, ensuring all of my users' data is safe is my job. It'd be like a security firm hired to manage a company's building security saying "dumb staff, if they aren't second dan black belt karate masters with a 9mm tucked into their belt I have no sympathy if they get mugged in the lobby".
Wow! That's a great solution, now all I need to do is give my Mum a crash course in command line usage, file ownership manage and UNIX file permissions! She'll have our family albums up in no time!
Perhaps I'm just a nutty conspiracy theorist, but the fact that the mainstream media has not covered it bears no small significance to me. I think that the number of places it has been reported though means that the event actually did happen. The only news source I can find with it mentioned is the tiniest of footnotes in this article:
http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7996749
1984 is circa 1985! OMG!!! *runs around very fast in small circles*
Thanks! You just gave me an idea for my next film!
Sure.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/04/killing-of-derek-hale-death-by-police.html
http://nynerd.com/sgt-derek-j-hale-usmc-murdered-by-delaware-police/
http://www.rense.com/general76/del.htm
http://www.google.com/
That last one is a gold mine.