I was thinking the same thing but couldn't remember any of the specifics. I'm glad you had the link handy. This note is in lieu of mod points, since I don't have any right now.
But what if I don't want my interaction with a police officer recorded? What if I'm telling him about the drug dealer down the street and would rather that guy not find out who was talking to the cops? Or maybe a cop regularly comes in and shoots-the-shit with me in my retail business. All of that would be recorded? It's good for cops to have that kind of casual relationship with people along their beat. It's not good that those people would be concerned that everything they said to the cop gets recorded
I'm absolutely a general proponent of the idea of recording police at work. It works great for car-mounted situations, because it's rare that dash cams would record the kind of citizen interactions I'd be worried about having recorded. But unless there is some way to mitigate my concerns, I believe recording day-to-day officer interactions would do more harm than good.
It does not light up like a regular video camera. A regular video camera has a very obvious red LED the turns on when it's recording. Glass does not. Glass just has the screen light up. And you can't necessarily tell the difference between the screen lighting up because it's recording and the screen lighting up because the guy just go an email.
It's actually not a full-sized X-wing, but a scaled up Lego X-wing, with the little bumps of the Lego blocks and all.
Frankly, I think it's actually more fun this way than if it were a full-scale replica out of Lego. There's something "meta" about building a big Lego piece out of smaller Lego pieces.
He didn't say jack about platforms at all. I brought it up to counter his fallacy -- that just because companies weren't going out of business, it must be because piracy isn't a financial problem. That train of logic ignores the possibility that the console side of a company's business keeps it going while it hemorhages money on PC piracy. The fact that many console developers exchew the PC altogether tends to lend credence to that possibility.
Perhaps that is because piracy rates are much lower for consoles. Perhaps you should ask the question "how many developers might have gone bankrupt if console piracy were as common as PC piracy?" But that's pretty difficult to answer, of course. Perhaps another question might be "how many games haven't included a PC release because the developer doesn't believe it can make money due to piracy?"
I'm not sure exactly why the umpire called Braun out. Even if Braun and Segura had both been on second in such a way that Braun hadn't passed Segura, Braun would have still been out because only the lead runner is safe when two runners are on a base (except if the lead has been forced off that base, in which case the trailing runner is safe) and Braun had been tagged.
I'd be interested to find out from an umpire whether Braun would have been considered to have passed Segura (as a hypothetical, I mean, where they were both in the same positions but no one tagged them). Technically, I think Braun had passed Segura, but might an umpire use his judgement in saying "well, Braun is on the outside part of the base, and Segura is on the inside, and the base line sort of turns 90 degrees, so is he really past?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "legit". Segura would have been safe on second because he was the lead runner. The only exception is that in a force situation, a runner cannot be safe on a base he is forced off of.
Interestingly, the ump atually called the play wrong. The whole "the software can't handle it" situation really shouldn't have happened. If you watch the replay closely (or listen to the commentators), you'll notice that Segura was actually tagged a second time right after he took his foot off second to run back to the dugout.
I think referring to it as "useful as a starting point" very much under values this approach. None of that other stuff you referenced matters, at all, if the algorithm is guaranteed to screw up under certain circumstances. The example they gave in the article was of a provably screwed-up algorithm.
However, I'm really commenting along the lines of "tone" or "emphasis". It is true that once you have a known-good algorithm, there's still other stuff that can go wrong that you need to pay attention to in how you both engineer and operate such machines.
If they are mining in a pool, then it doesn't matter if they find the block. The more computation you contribute to the pool, the bigger % you get of the 25 BTC if the pool as a whole wins the lottery. It means there's a much higher probability of the botnet controller making money than the way you are describing.
The fact that you have no idea which one you are using is immaterial. The only question that matters is "what is the source of power that is added/subtracted if you add/subtract a load, with all else held equal".
If the nuclear power will be used even if your load is not on the network, then it is fundamentally invalid to claim "my addition of this load to the network is clean because it comes from nuclear power".
Yup... until you get to the nuclear generator's marginal load. Then that's the thing powered by the nuclear generator.
The point is that the nuclear generator's electricity will be used whether of not that car is on the grid. So you can't really say "the nuclear generator powers the car".
Regardless of your skepticism, this is the appropriate way to think of the cost of generating electricity for electric cars.
The problem with dumping is not that we are getting stuff cheap, which I agree is good... temporarily.
The problem with dumping is that the strategy is to put the other countries' companies out of business, then raise the price later when there is less competition.
No it's not. The marginal car attached to the grid gets its energy from the marginal fuel source. In the U.S., the marginal source is typically natural gas. Said another way, when he unplugs his car, which generator throttles down a tiny bit? That's the generator that accounts for his electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's fair to blame the British for all of that. China has had a stringent civil service exam tradition, for instance, for 1,300 years.
I was thinking the same thing but couldn't remember any of the specifics. I'm glad you had the link handy. This note is in lieu of mod points, since I don't have any right now.
But what if I don't want my interaction with a police officer recorded? What if I'm telling him about the drug dealer down the street and would rather that guy not find out who was talking to the cops? Or maybe a cop regularly comes in and shoots-the-shit with me in my retail business. All of that would be recorded? It's good for cops to have that kind of casual relationship with people along their beat. It's not good that those people would be concerned that everything they said to the cop gets recorded
I'm absolutely a general proponent of the idea of recording police at work. It works great for car-mounted situations, because it's rare that dash cams would record the kind of citizen interactions I'd be worried about having recorded. But unless there is some way to mitigate my concerns, I believe recording day-to-day officer interactions would do more harm than good.
It does not light up like a regular video camera. A regular video camera has a very obvious red LED the turns on when it's recording. Glass does not. Glass just has the screen light up. And you can't necessarily tell the difference between the screen lighting up because it's recording and the screen lighting up because the guy just go an email.
Agreed. Why is this response considered so "disappointing"?
It's actually not a full-sized X-wing, but a scaled up Lego X-wing, with the little bumps of the Lego blocks and all.
Frankly, I think it's actually more fun this way than if it were a full-scale replica out of Lego. There's something "meta" about building a big Lego piece out of smaller Lego pieces.
Five years? Try right now.
ha ha ha ha ha
Keep moving that goal post. Hope it doesn't get too heavy.
He didn't say jack about platforms at all. I brought it up to counter his fallacy -- that just because companies weren't going out of business, it must be because piracy isn't a financial problem. That train of logic ignores the possibility that the console side of a company's business keeps it going while it hemorhages money on PC piracy. The fact that many console developers exchew the PC altogether tends to lend credence to that possibility.
Hadn't thought of that. But very low efficiency is still very much limiting the use possibilities.
Perhaps that is because piracy rates are much lower for consoles. Perhaps you should ask the question "how many developers might have gone bankrupt if console piracy were as common as PC piracy?" But that's pretty difficult to answer, of course. Perhaps another question might be "how many games haven't included a PC release because the developer doesn't believe it can make money due to piracy?"
Doesn't matter how cheap it is if you can't actually do anything useful with it.
Your post makes no sense. Just because Denmark actually pays-as-it-goes for its government, doesn't mean its government is smaller than the U.S.
I can't wait to see how you'll move the goalpost in response to this comment.
Why don't you lay off. Capital gains tax is a subset of income tax. So he's absolutely right.
"Ah! Yeah. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports before they go out now..."
Now we know why. :-)
I'm not sure exactly why the umpire called Braun out. Even if Braun and Segura had both been on second in such a way that Braun hadn't passed Segura, Braun would have still been out because only the lead runner is safe when two runners are on a base (except if the lead has been forced off that base, in which case the trailing runner is safe) and Braun had been tagged.
I'd be interested to find out from an umpire whether Braun would have been considered to have passed Segura (as a hypothetical, I mean, where they were both in the same positions but no one tagged them). Technically, I think Braun had passed Segura, but might an umpire use his judgement in saying "well, Braun is on the outside part of the base, and Segura is on the inside, and the base line sort of turns 90 degrees, so is he really past?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "legit". Segura would have been safe on second because he was the lead runner. The only exception is that in a force situation, a runner cannot be safe on a base he is forced off of.
Interestingly, the ump atually called the play wrong. The whole "the software can't handle it" situation really shouldn't have happened. If you watch the replay closely (or listen to the commentators), you'll notice that Segura was actually tagged a second time right after he took his foot off second to run back to the dugout.
Besides the official warnings being referred to as "yellow cards", exactly how is that different than any random game at Yankee Stadium. ;-)
OMG, yes. If Bitcoin didn't have a predictable monetary base, it might have volatility as high as 50% in just a few hours. Just like the dollar.
Oh... wait...
I think referring to it as "useful as a starting point" very much under values this approach. None of that other stuff you referenced matters, at all, if the algorithm is guaranteed to screw up under certain circumstances. The example they gave in the article was of a provably screwed-up algorithm.
However, I'm really commenting along the lines of "tone" or "emphasis". It is true that once you have a known-good algorithm, there's still other stuff that can go wrong that you need to pay attention to in how you both engineer and operate such machines.
If they are mining in a pool, then it doesn't matter if they find the block. The more computation you contribute to the pool, the bigger % you get of the 25 BTC if the pool as a whole wins the lottery. It means there's a much higher probability of the botnet controller making money than the way you are describing.
This is a fundamentally invalid argument.
The fact that you have no idea which one you are using is immaterial. The only question that matters is "what is the source of power that is added/subtracted if you add/subtract a load, with all else held equal".
If the nuclear power will be used even if your load is not on the network, then it is fundamentally invalid to claim "my addition of this load to the network is clean because it comes from nuclear power".
Yup... until you get to the nuclear generator's marginal load. Then that's the thing powered by the nuclear generator.
The point is that the nuclear generator's electricity will be used whether of not that car is on the grid. So you can't really say "the nuclear generator powers the car".
Regardless of your skepticism, this is the appropriate way to think of the cost of generating electricity for electric cars.
The problem with dumping is not that we are getting stuff cheap, which I agree is good... temporarily.
The problem with dumping is that the strategy is to put the other countries' companies out of business, then raise the price later when there is less competition.
No it's not. The marginal car attached to the grid gets its energy from the marginal fuel source. In the U.S., the marginal source is typically natural gas. Said another way, when he unplugs his car, which generator throttles down a tiny bit? That's the generator that accounts for his electricity.