Mark Cuban noted that colleges increase tuition to the amount that students can borrow, and suggested if they capped the amount of loans, the universities would be forced to lower tuition or lose students.
It's an interesting idea, but in the end I'd guess the lower income families would get hurt.
'Rigorous' is a word that cannot be applied in psychology. I'm not saying that there isn't value to the testing, but in the end the workings of the mind are far more complex than any categorization/grouping technique, no matter how fine the spectrum is developed.
100 years from now, psychologists will wonder how their predecessors used SSRIs without really knowing what they do, just like the way we look at lobotomies now.
Well, I suppose that might be a bit up for debate in that Brazil has nothing to do with a man falsely accused of being a pedophile. But both involve a bureaucracy making mistakes that innocent people pay for.
In Brazil, a fly landed on a typewriter and an innocent man was imprisoned as an accused terrorist and later killed. A government functionary was assigned to correct the error, and the bureaucracy led to a lot more trouble and more people getting harassed. Hence the comparison, someone in the bureaucracy makes a typo and the full-force of the government comes in, ruins a life, and takes years to correct.
Whether you liked the movie or not, that's your opinion and I'm fine with your interpretation. I complained that it was made when '1984' was in production and seemed like a cash grab on the theme. I know some people who say the movie is the best they ever seen, I liked it well enough, others hated it. I guess the right term is polarizing.
Spez (reddit co-founder and CEO) commented on Digg recently. Digg's 'upgrade' to a tile format alienated the entire user base. It was the best thing that happened to Reddit.
In my view, Reddit's greatest strength is its greatest weakness. Like you note, too many people. The plus side is a lot of them are brilliant, a lot of them are misinformed but people think they are brilliant, and a lot of them are 'salt of the earth' variety that have a habit of writing honestly. There is no shortage of content if you know where to look.
Slashdot to me is now kind of a combined tech/science subreddit populated by usually smarter people, in general, but I must admit I'm coming here less and less because the stories posted have a lot of slant from certain submitters who know less than they think they do and the lack of curation for the obvious troll posts.
Thank you for the SIFT, HoG, and SVM tags, I do a bit of optimization in my job and I was curious if some of the things we do were applied in similar spaces. I know now the short answer is 'sort of.'
How much of this is just keeping a massive database of RGB pixel rasters and doing a least squares comparison analysis of edge interfaces, color ratios and geometries, and spitting out what appears to match the known object the most closely? I know that it sounds like I'm trivializing it, but I wonder it's really "machine learning" or if it's more or less "pattern matching."
According to the CIA FAQ, the The Central Intelligence Agency's primary mission is to collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the president and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to the national security. The CIA does not make policy; it is an independent source of foreign intelligence information for those who do. The CIA may also engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law."
Italics mine. My understanding is that the CIA is not supposed to perform domestic intelligence gathering. I'm curious (if the leaks are real) if that charter has been honored. If not, then there is a legality question.
I guess the real question is when someone should go through this effort? I mean, I know my browser history is tracked, as is my location through my phone, and probably what I'm doing at night as my phone sits on the charger...what will this protect that other sources don't reveal.
Man, to think 20 years ago I only imagined that the government, and now anyone who has the tools, could track my every word and movement, and then I would put away my TFH.
Something is clearly wrong with the translations of the Downfall videos. Sometimes it's about SAP, sometimes it's about the World Cup, but my limited German tells me it's about the fall of the Third Reich.
I received a long letter in Japanese, ran it through Google translate, and sent it to my Japanese colleague. He thanked me for pointing it out, it saved him an hour of work; he only needed to make minor corrections.
That's my point, there are so many averages of averages contained within the lines that they show, I have a hard time knowing for certain that a global location/time average is actually a trend. If they added some indication of the error, I'd be more concerned.
The red numbers are stated to be anthropogenic, and many of them have a +- following them which I view to be a standard deviation. The uncertainties associated to those are noting that the annual fluxes (red numbers) are on the orders of 10's, and the ocean inventories are in the thousands. If you have a hundred years of annual fluxes at 10, it's still two orders of magnitude less than the ocean inventory.
The models don't show how deep ocean temperature changes affect the fluxes, and they can't because they don't have those data yet (the number of unknown seamounts is in the thousands).
Given unknown ocean thermal dynamics, it's easy to see an atmospheric increase. But I don't see demonstrative proof that it's not the ocean belching out more CO2 because of increased surface ocean temperature. In other words, I find it as likely the CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature rise as CO2 is a leading cause of temperature rise.
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin. They are doing quality work there; however, the reporting of their efforts leave a lot to be desired.
Saying Twitter data are poor is misleading. Twitter would render a popular vote if all tweets were taken in aggregate, and in that case, it would have been correct. Now if they are blocking by state and got it wrong, it's still more of a function of who uses Twitter.
I agree the chemistry is cool, but I get annoyed when a technology gets repurposed as a 'CO2 recovery prospect' to get media attention and additional funding. If the work is groundbreaking, it wouldn't need the additional promotion.
The article mentioned methanol, methane and other side reactions. The water dominates though, about 55.5 moles per liter with CO2 so little, a little bit of hydrogen won't interfere too much.
His/her question is good, and the summary is incomplete. It converts CO2 to CH3CH2OH at a yield of about 63%, but what CO2 concentration in the water are they assuming? Average soda concentration is about 0.12-0.15 M (moles per liter) at about 4 bar. That would mean you'd get 0.05 M alcohol (2 carbons per EtOH from one carbon in CO2, 0.5*0.63*0.15), which is 0.05 moles EtOH/55.5 moles water or about 0.08 percent alcohol by volume. That's a lot less than the ethanol conversion you'd get from corn.
It did not mention the catalyst materials cost, nor the materials processing required to make a nanomaterial.
So we'd have energy costs by compressing CO2, then converting it using the catalyst, then there would be ethanol separation costs (with requisite electricity/natural gas from the distillation columns) from water that far exceed normal ethanol separation, and the ethanol would still have about 10% water because it is an azeotrope,so then you'd need another liquid-liquid extraction...
As is the case with the other carbon dioxide conversion schemes, it's really cool chemistry, looks good in summary, but the details render it ineffective for practical use.
Slashdot Mirror
Mark Cuban noted that colleges increase tuition to the amount that students can borrow, and suggested if they capped the amount of loans, the universities would be forced to lower tuition or lose students.
It's an interesting idea, but in the end I'd guess the lower income families would get hurt.
I've always used the Oxford comma ever since I read this sentence:
"I'd like to thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand."
Much different meaning than
"I'd like to thank my parents, God, and Ayn Rand."
'Rigorous' is a word that cannot be applied in psychology. I'm not saying that there isn't value to the testing, but in the end the workings of the mind are far more complex than any categorization/grouping technique, no matter how fine the spectrum is developed.
100 years from now, psychologists will wonder how their predecessors used SSRIs without really knowing what they do, just like the way we look at lobotomies now.
Well, I suppose that might be a bit up for debate in that Brazil has nothing to do with a man falsely accused of being a pedophile. But both involve a bureaucracy making mistakes that innocent people pay for.
In Brazil, a fly landed on a typewriter and an innocent man was imprisoned as an accused terrorist and later killed. A government functionary was assigned to correct the error, and the bureaucracy led to a lot more trouble and more people getting harassed. Hence the comparison, someone in the bureaucracy makes a typo and the full-force of the government comes in, ruins a life, and takes years to correct.
Whether you liked the movie or not, that's your opinion and I'm fine with your interpretation. I complained that it was made when '1984' was in production and seemed like a cash grab on the theme. I know some people who say the movie is the best they ever seen, I liked it well enough, others hated it. I guess the right term is polarizing.
I preferred Gilliam's ending.
For those who haven't seen the movie 'Brazil,' this event is so close to the premise of that movie that it's eerie.
I read it, and if you did you'd see he answered the question with some historical perspective. It's a discussion. No need to be a troll.
Spez (reddit co-founder and CEO) commented on Digg recently. Digg's 'upgrade' to a tile format alienated the entire user base. It was the best thing that happened to Reddit.
In my view, Reddit's greatest strength is its greatest weakness. Like you note, too many people. The plus side is a lot of them are brilliant, a lot of them are misinformed but people think they are brilliant, and a lot of them are 'salt of the earth' variety that have a habit of writing honestly. There is no shortage of content if you know where to look.
Slashdot to me is now kind of a combined tech/science subreddit populated by usually smarter people, in general, but I must admit I'm coming here less and less because the stories posted have a lot of slant from certain submitters who know less than they think they do and the lack of curation for the obvious troll posts.
To be fair, others pay quite well. I learned a lot and was paid near 80% of full time wage (at a semiconductor company).
Why do people complain? You have more light for evening activities while still having enough light in the morning to get you to work.
I can ride my bike home after work and not be in the dark. I can take my kids to the park. I can spend one more hour in the yard.
It changes back because it's too dark in the morning for too long.
And sure, as Hawai'i and Arizona can tell you, you're just fine if you don't change them. But I like it.
Thank you for the SIFT, HoG, and SVM tags, I do a bit of optimization in my job and I was curious if some of the things we do were applied in similar spaces. I know now the short answer is 'sort of.'
How much of this is just keeping a massive database of RGB pixel rasters and doing a least squares comparison analysis of edge interfaces, color ratios and geometries, and spitting out what appears to match the known object the most closely? I know that it sounds like I'm trivializing it, but I wonder it's really "machine learning" or if it's more or less "pattern matching."
While I've seen it before, I do think your .sig explains Life, The Universe, and Everything.
A relative works at a bank programming exclusively in COBOL, and does quite well. That language will be around for quite some time.
According to the CIA FAQ, the The Central Intelligence Agency's primary mission is to collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the president and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to the national security. The CIA does not make policy; it is an independent source of foreign intelligence information for those who do. The CIA may also engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law."
Italics mine. My understanding is that the CIA is not supposed to perform domestic intelligence gathering. I'm curious (if the leaks are real) if that charter has been honored. If not, then there is a legality question.
I guess the real question is when someone should go through this effort? I mean, I know my browser history is tracked, as is my location through my phone, and probably what I'm doing at night as my phone sits on the charger...what will this protect that other sources don't reveal.
Man, to think 20 years ago I only imagined that the government, and now anyone who has the tools, could track my every word and movement, and then I would put away my TFH.
Now it is a reality.
Something is clearly wrong with the translations of the Downfall videos. Sometimes it's about SAP, sometimes it's about the World Cup, but my limited German tells me it's about the fall of the Third Reich.
I received a long letter in Japanese, ran it through Google translate, and sent it to my Japanese colleague. He thanked me for pointing it out, it saved him an hour of work; he only needed to make minor corrections.
That's my point, there are so many averages of averages contained within the lines that they show, I have a hard time knowing for certain that a global location/time average is actually a trend. If they added some indication of the error, I'd be more concerned.
The red numbers are stated to be anthropogenic, and many of them have a +- following them which I view to be a standard deviation. The uncertainties associated to those are noting that the annual fluxes (red numbers) are on the orders of 10's, and the ocean inventories are in the thousands. If you have a hundred years of annual fluxes at 10, it's still two orders of magnitude less than the ocean inventory.
The models don't show how deep ocean temperature changes affect the fluxes, and they can't because they don't have those data yet (the number of unknown seamounts is in the thousands).
Given unknown ocean thermal dynamics, it's easy to see an atmospheric increase. But I don't see demonstrative proof that it's not the ocean belching out more CO2 because of increased surface ocean temperature. In other words, I find it as likely the CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature rise as CO2 is a leading cause of temperature rise.
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin. They are doing quality work there; however, the reporting of their efforts leave a lot to be desired.
Saying Twitter data are poor is misleading. Twitter would render a popular vote if all tweets were taken in aggregate, and in that case, it would have been correct. Now if they are blocking by state and got it wrong, it's still more of a function of who uses Twitter.
And the lawyers will get half of that, which is $1.9 billion, and the sole reason for this lawsuit.
I'm not sure I understand how it is illegal for a company to retain valuable information.
I agree the chemistry is cool, but I get annoyed when a technology gets repurposed as a 'CO2 recovery prospect' to get media attention and additional funding. If the work is groundbreaking, it wouldn't need the additional promotion.
The article mentioned methanol, methane and other side reactions. The water dominates though, about 55.5 moles per liter with CO2 so little, a little bit of hydrogen won't interfere too much.
His/her question is good, and the summary is incomplete. It converts CO2 to CH3CH2OH at a yield of about 63%, but what CO2 concentration in the water are they assuming? Average soda concentration is about 0.12-0.15 M (moles per liter) at about 4 bar. That would mean you'd get 0.05 M alcohol (2 carbons per EtOH from one carbon in CO2, 0.5*0.63*0.15), which is 0.05 moles EtOH/55.5 moles water or about 0.08 percent alcohol by volume. That's a lot less than the ethanol conversion you'd get from corn.
It did not mention the catalyst materials cost, nor the materials processing required to make a nanomaterial.
So we'd have energy costs by compressing CO2, then converting it using the catalyst, then there would be ethanol separation costs (with requisite electricity/natural gas from the distillation columns) from water that far exceed normal ethanol separation, and the ethanol would still have about 10% water because it is an azeotrope,so then you'd need another liquid-liquid extraction...
As is the case with the other carbon dioxide conversion schemes, it's really cool chemistry, looks good in summary, but the details render it ineffective for practical use.