Once again: pounds are a unit of force, kilograms are a unit of mass. Yes, when talking about someone's weight (and considering it as mass) we often fudge it and use pounds as a mass scale, the pedant in me has accepted this (annoying) reality. But fudging kilograms as a force measure makes me all stabby. It's either 2352 Newtons (240kg * 9.8 m/s^2 at normal gravity) or else the equivalent of 240kg pressing down on the starting block.
At least Germany has a reason. Lets look at post WWII: Germany had just been utterly broken by the allied powers, the condemnation of the world came down upon them as the enormity of the crimes committed was made known, and all of those militaries (still smarting from having just done this in WWI) are keenly interested in not having this happen again.
So in the interest of not having their shit completely ruined again, Germany took it upon itself to censor much of racist speech. Including, perhaps most significantly, criminalizing denial of the holocaust. Even so, Germany wasn't re-unified as a single country until a little over two decades ago. That's two entire generations paying for the sins of their fathers. I'd probably be in a censoring mood too trying to stop a repeat of mistakes from the past.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of speech, I'm just saying I kind of understand where Germany is coming from with their particular brand of censorship.
Yes, the two tweets are from the same person rileyy_69.
Well there's your problem. Anyone with a "69" in their username has a 90% chance of being a douchebag/troll/flamebaiter/teenager. The remaining 10% grew out of it but kept the name, made an innocent mistake, inherited the account from someone else, or some other outlier case.
See, but it's about how fast you release it, at least in part. If you leave a light bulb burning for 5 hours, you use the same amount of energy, but release it all at once in a confined space and you tear it up.
1.85MJ is roughly equivalent to a stick of dynamite, and that is not safe to play around with. I mean, bullets generally have energy measured in kilojoules and they are plenty destructive. Something like this could be the laser equivalent of an armor piercing round.
It's probably one of the tens of thousands of alien vessels monitoring our world. Every once in a while a lightning storm overloads their cloaking equipment and we see it as a bright flash. I'm sure the captain of the Myanmar surveillance contingent will be properly disciplined and reduced in rank for allow one of his ships to be seen even indirectly by the subjects under observation.
Luckily no one will believe the real truth thanks to a long running public disinformation campaign designed to discredit all claims of alien interaction. Roswell was the first major mishap (stupid joyriding teenagers). Area 51 doesn't actually contain anything, the ship itself was towed and the kids sent for reprogramming, but the distraction was necessary.
Anyway, carry on, your theories are amusing to us.
So...there's still a local supermarket from which these deliveries are made. I think you're missing the point of the GP post. If everyone starts ordering their stuff online then drivers replace cashiers and bag-boys as the driving labor force. There's still a local presence, hiring local help, at probably the same wages. The fact that you're placing your order online does not significantly change the local economy.
Technically I suppose it's "online shopping" in the strictest sense, but it's not the local economy destroying monster that people usually think of where faceless Amazon puts mom & pop out of business.
The problem with polygamy relates strangely well to graph theory. With an individual couple you have exactly one connection that must be maintained (A-B). However with three people there are suddenly three connections (A-B, B-C, A-C) to worry about with the associated increase in complications and balance.
It gets much worse very quickly, increasing quadratically - 4 people have 6 connections, 5 people have 10, and so on. This introduces a problem of stability wherein one or more people may be ejected from the whole leading to exceedingly unstable environments which can and would be fairly counterproductive to the proper raising of children.
The way polygamist relationships have traditionally worked has involved more of a hub and spoke model - one man at the center assuming all, or at least most, of the power with the wives being strictly subservient to him. This is decidedly bad for the women involved, but it is the most stable layout with the highest likelihood of long term success in raising children.
Basically, polygamy is inherently unstable and the odds of a polygamist arrangement failing increases roughly as a square of the number of people involved. Hence, if the odds of a single couple's marriage failing is 50%, then the odds of a three-person marriage/union failing (assuming equality in power and decision-making) is 100%-(50%^3) = 87.5% that one of the relationships will breakdown and lead to dissolution. Four people = 100% - (50%^6) = 98.4% and so on. The divorce situation is already bad enough and rough enough on our children. And any fairly stable multi-person union that I can think of if patently unfair to the subservient members of it so...yeah, polygamy is a very different discussion.
The average person will gladly lie, cheat, and steal (or worse), and is only stopped by immediate negative consequences for those actions. The average person should not be trusted - they'd take everything you had if they reasonably believed they could get away with it forever.
No, this is true more of the average sociopath. Unfortunately in a society where as many as 3% of people could be classes as sociopathic, it's hard to trust the remainder who aren't. You come into contact with so many people these days that it's hard to weed out the sociopaths fast enough and as soon as you do figure it out they move on to another victim. This breeds an atmosphere of distrust and cynicism.
Just because you are programming in a Lower Level language... It doesn't mean all your code will be faster.
Yes, but it has the potential to be faster - the tightest optimized C code will always outperform the tightest optimized Java code, for example.
When you code in C (or any other language) your goal is usually focused on your final project. Even with a degree in computer science, you may not have focused all your code to be optimal, (you are short on time so you put a bubble sort in it). Compared with Java where you do a.Sort() to your string class... Chances are it will be coded with a Faster sorting algorithm. Because the person who programmed Java.Sort() class, their business requirement wasn't to make a large project, but an efficient sort algorithm.
I'll agree with you to a point, but sometimes bubblesort is appropriate - if you're sorting a very small list (like under 100 items, guaranteed) it may not be worth the overhead of a nlgn sorter. But if you're sorting any sizable list of items the performance hit will assure you of a failing grade (in school) or a bad performance review (in the business world). Failure to understand why and how an underlying algorithm works is a recipe for disaster - see previous comments on Java Hashmap for example. It really pays to understand what's going on under the hood in your programs, otherwise you're a ticking time bomb.
This is far too dangerous. It's bad enough that our cars are running around with gasoline equivalent to about 600kg of TNT (132MJ / gallon of gas, 4.164MJ / kg of TNT *20 gallons in a big tank) though gas is certainly less immediately explosive. Now imagine carrying far more than that on your person, in a far denser medium and imagine the mayhem that would ensue when people started letting loose with uncontrolled discharges of energy.
Laptop batteries already accidentally start fires from overheating. If something like you're proposing overloads we could be missing a city block or two.
It's pretty clear he meant Watt-Hours. The common vernacular involves referring to one's power bill by saying how many "kilowatts" one has paid for, with the understanding in that context that what is meant is kilowatt-hours.
I'm not sure I want people walking around with so much pent-up energy though. If it were to suddenly discharge all at once you could have a nasty little explosion on your hands. As it is laptop batteries are charged with an amount of energy equivalent to about half a grenade (~230kJ for a half-kilo battery pack, fully charged vs. ~400kJ for a grenade stuffed with 50g of TNT) and to work in realistic amounts you would probably need to carry substantially more than that.
However, if this future means we get to run around with motorcycles equipped with nuclear bombs then I could probably get on board with this =D
There's nothing wrong with it, I was replying in the context of Grishnakh's post where he's saying modern life basically requires something like Facebook to stay in touch with friends at all.
For things like reconnecting with an old high school buddy or whatnot I think Facebook is terrific. When Facebook turns into your only method of keeping in touch with the majority of your friends, it's time to take a step back. My underlying point was that you can maintain fulfilling friendships without hi-tech assistance and that the friendships you truly value you will put in the effort to maintain even if Facebook disappeared tomorrow.
21 Icons in QuickLaunch here (3 rows of 7 each). I actually made a VBScript to hack in a QuickLaunch bar for new Windows 7 installs because I got tired of going through all the steps to enable it, position it how I want, and size it how I want.
But even then I *still* use the start menu for infrequently run programs.
Or why a guest network shouldn't have active directory controlling it?
Well, if you have a directory-enabled application on your guest network (and heaven knows many of them are these days) you could still implement Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services to service such a beast. I'm not saying you're wrong about the guy (and certainly your production directory shouldn't be exposed like that), but there are ways and situations where that's not only appropriate, but desirable.
Oh come now. He was making an illustration that was still vastly simplified so as to be accessible to the majority of readers, not detailing an exactly flow chart of input to output signals. There's no need to be insulting, and he's right - the statement was made in the context of a bad pun, not a technical discussion. Treating it as a technical treatise is disingenuous.
Here's a hint: if you and your friend don't care enough about each other to be in contact in some way that doesn't require Facebook to facilitate it, then you don't really have a friendship. In the old days if you lost touch with someone you just let it go, nowadays you have people on your friends list that you haven't physically been in contact with for over a decade and yet they linger. It leads to a certain stagnation in relationships that used to be pruned by the requirement of actually putting effort into maintaining real and close friends.
I think Facebook and similar sites have their place, but to be honest, I think we overuse and misuse them.
...a project led by Google's Dr Jeff Dean which used a "16,000 processor array to create a brain-style 'neural network' with more than a billion connections."
Which connection scheme are you using? In a topological sense, meaning the rules that determine which nodes are connected to other nodes. Is there a way to determine the correct topology using some method?
(not an AI researcher) honest question - what's the point of having multiple connections between processors? If it's a completely connected K-16000 graph then there would only be ~128 million connections. If he's using over a billion that's averaging about 8 connections from every node to every other node. What's the logic behind that with a processor array?
Honestly it could be 0.10 cents a month and doubling every month and it would still be well worth it by the end of the second year. The growth function is so insane that your short-term downside is rapidly outstripped by the hyper fast growth of the function. I mean, yeah at month 12 you would get a measly $204.80, but at the end of month 24 you would pull down $838,860.80. So...yeah.
Hourly it builds even faster - $16 for the first month (160 hours at 0.10 / hour) and by the twelfth month you're getting $32,768. So after 12 months at 1) you made $100,000, and after 12 months at 2) you made $65,520 - but in the 13th month at 2) you pull ahead.
The more interesting question to show true understanding would be to ask them to figure that out for a job that only lasts exactly one year, where the correct answer is the one that doesn't double, just to catch the slackers that think they have it memorized. That's exactly the kind of thing I would put on a computer science algorithms test if I was a professor.
If you really, really, really enjoy being treated like a college student, it might seem like heaven to you, but I can imagine that a seasoned, professional developer could feel pretty insulted by that level of paternalism. That said, Google also seems to favor hiring people right out of college.
You know, if you're hiring strategy is to go after people with Asperger's who hyper-focus on interesting technical problems and hate the concept of change...that's probably an excellent way to build a work environment where such individuals will thrive.
I mean, think about it - they just spent 4 years getting used to college and are about to face yet another major life change and here comes Google to say that hey, things don't have to change much at all - work can be just like college for you. I probably would have jumped on an opportunity like that if I'd realized what the potential upside was. On the other hand I probably wouldn't be married right now and I would most likely be working 80+ hour weeks, but hey.
Slashdot Mirror
...he was pushing 240 kilograms (529 lbs.)...
Ugh.
Once again: pounds are a unit of force, kilograms are a unit of mass. Yes, when talking about someone's weight (and considering it as mass) we often fudge it and use pounds as a mass scale, the pedant in me has accepted this (annoying) reality. But fudging kilograms as a force measure makes me all stabby. It's either 2352 Newtons (240kg * 9.8 m/s^2 at normal gravity) or else the equivalent of 240kg pressing down on the starting block.
tl;dr Force is NOT Mass!
If speaking English and hating people from the Middle East was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for the rest of us.
That's...I mean...it's a joke...it's a joke...*brain asplode*
Well, we all know that the Franchise Wars are coming...Taco Bell should stock up just to be safe.
*slow clap*
This is for you.
Also this
So in the interest of not having their shit completely ruined again, Germany took it upon itself to censor much of racist speech. Including, perhaps most significantly, criminalizing denial of the holocaust. Even so, Germany wasn't re-unified as a single country until a little over two decades ago. That's two entire generations paying for the sins of their fathers. I'd probably be in a censoring mood too trying to stop a repeat of mistakes from the past.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of speech, I'm just saying I kind of understand where Germany is coming from with their particular brand of censorship.
Yes, the two tweets are from the same person rileyy_69.
Well there's your problem. Anyone with a "69" in their username has a 90% chance of being a douchebag/troll/flamebaiter/teenager. The remaining 10% grew out of it but kept the name, made an innocent mistake, inherited the account from someone else, or some other outlier case.
You laugh, but it is in fact legal to prescribe meth in the United States. And it is approved to treat obesity by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Almost exactly interestingly enough. Since a stick of dynamite is right around 2MJ and this laser outputs 1.85MJ.
See, but it's about how fast you release it, at least in part. If you leave a light bulb burning for 5 hours, you use the same amount of energy, but release it all at once in a confined space and you tear it up.
1.85MJ is roughly equivalent to a stick of dynamite, and that is not safe to play around with. I mean, bullets generally have energy measured in kilojoules and they are plenty destructive. Something like this could be the laser equivalent of an armor piercing round.
It's probably one of the tens of thousands of alien vessels monitoring our world. Every once in a while a lightning storm overloads their cloaking equipment and we see it as a bright flash. I'm sure the captain of the Myanmar surveillance contingent will be properly disciplined and reduced in rank for allow one of his ships to be seen even indirectly by the subjects under observation.
Luckily no one will believe the real truth thanks to a long running public disinformation campaign designed to discredit all claims of alien interaction. Roswell was the first major mishap (stupid joyriding teenagers). Area 51 doesn't actually contain anything, the ship itself was towed and the kids sent for reprogramming, but the distraction was necessary.
Anyway, carry on, your theories are amusing to us.
And back more on topic - Why do Astronauts drink Sprite? Because they can't get 7-Up
Still too soon man, too soon.
So...there's still a local supermarket from which these deliveries are made. I think you're missing the point of the GP post. If everyone starts ordering their stuff online then drivers replace cashiers and bag-boys as the driving labor force. There's still a local presence, hiring local help, at probably the same wages. The fact that you're placing your order online does not significantly change the local economy.
Technically I suppose it's "online shopping" in the strictest sense, but it's not the local economy destroying monster that people usually think of where faceless Amazon puts mom & pop out of business.
The problem with polygamy relates strangely well to graph theory. With an individual couple you have exactly one connection that must be maintained (A-B). However with three people there are suddenly three connections (A-B, B-C, A-C) to worry about with the associated increase in complications and balance.
It gets much worse very quickly, increasing quadratically - 4 people have 6 connections, 5 people have 10, and so on. This introduces a problem of stability wherein one or more people may be ejected from the whole leading to exceedingly unstable environments which can and would be fairly counterproductive to the proper raising of children.
The way polygamist relationships have traditionally worked has involved more of a hub and spoke model - one man at the center assuming all, or at least most, of the power with the wives being strictly subservient to him. This is decidedly bad for the women involved, but it is the most stable layout with the highest likelihood of long term success in raising children.
Basically, polygamy is inherently unstable and the odds of a polygamist arrangement failing increases roughly as a square of the number of people involved. Hence, if the odds of a single couple's marriage failing is 50%, then the odds of a three-person marriage/union failing (assuming equality in power and decision-making) is 100%-(50%^3) = 87.5% that one of the relationships will breakdown and lead to dissolution. Four people = 100% - (50%^6) = 98.4% and so on. The divorce situation is already bad enough and rough enough on our children. And any fairly stable multi-person union that I can think of if patently unfair to the subservient members of it so...yeah, polygamy is a very different discussion.
The average person will gladly lie, cheat, and steal (or worse), and is only stopped by immediate negative consequences for those actions. The average person should not be trusted - they'd take everything you had if they reasonably believed they could get away with it forever.
No, this is true more of the average sociopath. Unfortunately in a society where as many as 3% of people could be classes as sociopathic, it's hard to trust the remainder who aren't. You come into contact with so many people these days that it's hard to weed out the sociopaths fast enough and as soon as you do figure it out they move on to another victim. This breeds an atmosphere of distrust and cynicism.
Just because you are programming in a Lower Level language... It doesn't mean all your code will be faster.
Yes, but it has the potential to be faster - the tightest optimized C code will always outperform the tightest optimized Java code, for example.
When you code in C (or any other language) your goal is usually focused on your final project. Even with a degree in computer science, you may not have focused all your code to be optimal, (you are short on time so you put a bubble sort in it). Compared with Java where you do a .Sort() to your string class... Chances are it will be coded with a Faster sorting algorithm. Because the person who programmed Java .Sort() class, their business requirement wasn't to make a large project, but an efficient sort algorithm.
I'll agree with you to a point, but sometimes bubblesort is appropriate - if you're sorting a very small list (like under 100 items, guaranteed) it may not be worth the overhead of a nlgn sorter. But if you're sorting any sizable list of items the performance hit will assure you of a failing grade (in school) or a bad performance review (in the business world). Failure to understand why and how an underlying algorithm works is a recipe for disaster - see previous comments on Java Hashmap for example. It really pays to understand what's going on under the hood in your programs, otherwise you're a ticking time bomb.
This is far too dangerous. It's bad enough that our cars are running around with gasoline equivalent to about 600kg of TNT (132MJ / gallon of gas, 4.164MJ / kg of TNT *20 gallons in a big tank) though gas is certainly less immediately explosive. Now imagine carrying far more than that on your person, in a far denser medium and imagine the mayhem that would ensue when people started letting loose with uncontrolled discharges of energy.
Laptop batteries already accidentally start fires from overheating. If something like you're proposing overloads we could be missing a city block or two.
It's pretty clear he meant Watt-Hours. The common vernacular involves referring to one's power bill by saying how many "kilowatts" one has paid for, with the understanding in that context that what is meant is kilowatt-hours.
I'm not sure I want people walking around with so much pent-up energy though. If it were to suddenly discharge all at once you could have a nasty little explosion on your hands. As it is laptop batteries are charged with an amount of energy equivalent to about half a grenade (~230kJ for a half-kilo battery pack, fully charged vs. ~400kJ for a grenade stuffed with 50g of TNT) and to work in realistic amounts you would probably need to carry substantially more than that.
However, if this future means we get to run around with motorcycles equipped with nuclear bombs then I could probably get on board with this =D
There's nothing wrong with it, I was replying in the context of Grishnakh's post where he's saying modern life basically requires something like Facebook to stay in touch with friends at all.
For things like reconnecting with an old high school buddy or whatnot I think Facebook is terrific. When Facebook turns into your only method of keeping in touch with the majority of your friends, it's time to take a step back. My underlying point was that you can maintain fulfilling friendships without hi-tech assistance and that the friendships you truly value you will put in the effort to maintain even if Facebook disappeared tomorrow.
21 Icons in QuickLaunch here (3 rows of 7 each). I actually made a VBScript to hack in a QuickLaunch bar for new Windows 7 installs because I got tired of going through all the steps to enable it, position it how I want, and size it how I want.
But even then I *still* use the start menu for infrequently run programs.
Or why a guest network shouldn't have active directory controlling it?
Well, if you have a directory-enabled application on your guest network (and heaven knows many of them are these days) you could still implement Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services to service such a beast. I'm not saying you're wrong about the guy (and certainly your production directory shouldn't be exposed like that), but there are ways and situations where that's not only appropriate, but desirable.
Oh come now. He was making an illustration that was still vastly simplified so as to be accessible to the majority of readers, not detailing an exactly flow chart of input to output signals. There's no need to be insulting, and he's right - the statement was made in the context of a bad pun, not a technical discussion. Treating it as a technical treatise is disingenuous.
Here's a hint: if you and your friend don't care enough about each other to be in contact in some way that doesn't require Facebook to facilitate it, then you don't really have a friendship. In the old days if you lost touch with someone you just let it go, nowadays you have people on your friends list that you haven't physically been in contact with for over a decade and yet they linger. It leads to a certain stagnation in relationships that used to be pruned by the requirement of actually putting effort into maintaining real and close friends.
I think Facebook and similar sites have their place, but to be honest, I think we overuse and misuse them.
Which connection scheme are you using? In a topological sense, meaning the rules that determine which nodes are connected to other nodes. Is there a way to determine the correct topology using some method?
(not an AI researcher) honest question - what's the point of having multiple connections between processors? If it's a completely connected K-16000 graph then there would only be ~128 million connections. If he's using over a billion that's averaging about 8 connections from every node to every other node. What's the logic behind that with a processor array?
Honestly it could be 0.10 cents a month and doubling every month and it would still be well worth it by the end of the second year. The growth function is so insane that your short-term downside is rapidly outstripped by the hyper fast growth of the function. I mean, yeah at month 12 you would get a measly $204.80, but at the end of month 24 you would pull down $838,860.80. So...yeah.
Hourly it builds even faster - $16 for the first month (160 hours at 0.10 / hour) and by the twelfth month you're getting $32,768. So after 12 months at 1) you made $100,000, and after 12 months at 2) you made $65,520 - but in the 13th month at 2) you pull ahead.
The more interesting question to show true understanding would be to ask them to figure that out for a job that only lasts exactly one year, where the correct answer is the one that doesn't double, just to catch the slackers that think they have it memorized. That's exactly the kind of thing I would put on a computer science algorithms test if I was a professor.
If you really, really, really enjoy being treated like a college student, it might seem like heaven to you, but I can imagine that a seasoned, professional developer could feel pretty insulted by that level of paternalism. That said, Google also seems to favor hiring people right out of college.
You know, if you're hiring strategy is to go after people with Asperger's who hyper-focus on interesting technical problems and hate the concept of change...that's probably an excellent way to build a work environment where such individuals will thrive.
I mean, think about it - they just spent 4 years getting used to college and are about to face yet another major life change and here comes Google to say that hey, things don't have to change much at all - work can be just like college for you. I probably would have jumped on an opportunity like that if I'd realized what the potential upside was. On the other hand I probably wouldn't be married right now and I would most likely be working 80+ hour weeks, but hey.