This has been known for a while. In the 80's Kansas City ended up spending $2 billion in school funding over roughly a decade after a court ruling from a federal judge to improve their schools and it did nothing to improve education attainment despite having the highest spending per pupil in the nation. Education isn't something you can throw money at to fix. If you're trying to make a fundamentally flawed system work, additional funding won't achieve anything.
This doesn't seem like a bad idea. The writing from Square really started to go downhill towards the end of the PlayStation era any the majority of roles in their role playing games were those of whinny teens with an absurd sense of fashion. Perhaps in remaking the older games they'll learn something about storytelling and make new games where I'm not cheering for the villain because of my disdain for the protagonists.
Couldn't an attacker still exploit the vulnerability by incrementally making small adjustments that fall within the differential though? Just because it can prevent a single large inadvertent mistake doesn't mean it's completely safe.
Because the people who tend to buy into this crap believe that anything other than an even gender/sex ratio must be due to discrimination and couldn't possibly be explained by other causes such as differences in the male and female brains over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution that shape our culture just as much as societal norms and influence vocational interests.
As such, they either don't regard the treatment as sexist or racist, or if they do see it that way feel that it is justified in order to treat the imagined issue of discrimination in hiring practices, etc. that must be to blame for the imbalance.
Does it actually work like a meter though? Is it constantly running and incriminating the fare based on distance traveled or time? That's what a meter in a taxi does. If a phone is just calculating a route from the current location to the destination and deriving cost from that, it's not a meter. Just because they both determine the cost of a ride does not mean that they are equivalent.
How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.
You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve (and hope that don't just change it later) and manually inspect it for nefarious code, which isn't always possible to detect if it's obfuscated sufficiently well or exploits a previously unknown attack vector. That's already more work than anyone is willing to put up with just to serve some ads, so no one will bother doing it.
Do we really need to start perceiving whether people who might perceive something as a slight actually will? If you want to complain about people being overly politically correct and getting bent out of shape over something inconsequential, at least let them get bent out of shape about it first before whining about it or you end up looking just as petty.
Moore's law is about transistor density, not the number of cores or their performance.
We've reached a point where the amount of computational power in the chips that are being made is in excess of what the majority of consumers need so instead of further increasing the number of cores, which is pointless for most workloads or making the individual cores more powerful, the density improvements are being used to make smaller chips that are more power efficient because the most pervasive computers these days are those which are battery powered.
My phone has more computational power than my desktop computer from 10 years ago. Moore's law might be slowing down due to physical limitations as we move closer to chip designs with features that are only a few atoms thick, but we're still moving forward and should for a few more generations of chips even if it's not quite at the original pace, which isn't that big of a deal for most users anyways.
Explain Switzerland. Among the highest countries in terms of per capita gun ownership and also among the lowest in terms of crime (not just gun violence).
In a previous gun-related story on/. I did a quick correlation between gun ownership rates and crime rates from data available on Wikipedia and there wasn't much of a strong correlation ( r = ~.2 or thereabouts I think) as one might expect.
Some people are idiots and we have to accept that they may be irresponsible and cause harm. However, that should not be cause to take those rights away from everyone. Alcohol causes far more deaths per year than guns do. Should we reenact prohibition?
What contextual information might put the "one toddler a week" meme into perspective, and make it seem less important?
I'd probably check into how many of them are stealing candy from other toddlers and physically striking each other. Kind of hard to play up toddler gun violence when you look at the out of control prevalence of toddler theft and assault.
You could probably attack it from a women's rights perspective as well. Don't think of it as toddler gun violence so much as an unusually late term abortion. If Disney can still claim full control of an animated cartoon over 70 years after drawing it, clearly we can extend the same rights to allow women to have some control over their offspring a few years after their birth. If you don't support sixteenth trimester abortions, you clearly hate women!
I'm sure there are other angles to work, but those seem like a good start.
I think it's typically used to mean a pretentious or ostentatious person or at least that's how it comes off in this case. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a simple game (some are just as enjoyable as bigger budget games) but attempting to pass it off as something more than that is what tends to draw the hipster label.
He doesn't need to be a climatologist to look at climate models and see that their predictions firstly do not hold after a certain point and second that for more recent models, that the amount of deviation after some threshold is larger than it was for earlier models.
I don't know whether that statement is actually true (but it is testable) but I suspect that neither of us are climatologists, but we could both gather and analyze the data and could ourselves reach the same conclusion. There's a difference between saying all of climatology is bunk and pointing out that the predictions made by their models have been wrong and that also that the magnitude of the error is larger for newer models. The only potential error made is that we're trusting that as a scientist he really has conducted a rigorous study (i.e. looked as as much available data as possible) to reach his conclusions. I would almost expect that if he went to the trouble of actually looking into this himself, that he would have documented his methodologies and published his findings.
Also, just because all of the models have been wrong or imperfect does not imply that we can't create a working one, simply that it might take a long time so it's not a good idea to put a lot of faith into an arbitrary model unless it starts to show good long-term prediction abilities. It supposedly took Edison hundreds of attempts to get a working light bulb. It may take that many failures in our climate models until we can accurately account for the things that we're currently missing.
Everyone eventually gets sick and likely ends up soaking up huge medical bills. You could be perfectly healthy all your life but still wind up with cancer and an expensive treatment.
The only alternative is some kine of Logan's Run approach, but I don't think anyone will be lining up for that.
What you fail to consider is that what is expensive as hell today, will only get cheaper in time as technology improves. In 200 years, curing cancer might be as easy as taking some over the counter medication that's cheaply available. Look back at the biggest killers from 200 years ago and we've eliminated a lot of them or made it relatively inexpensive to deal with them. The difficult problems now are next centuries low hanging fruit and we don't get to that point without spending a lot of resources to solve those problems.
Well it's easy to test. If we continue to observe it over time and we keep seeing less and less light, which one would expect as they construct more and more of the sphere, then the hypothesis becomes more likely.
Of course given the distance of this star, if they were building a Dyson sphere, it might be finished by now (we'd only being seeing construction progress from ~1,500 years ago) and a civilization advanced enough to do that could probably travel the vast expanses of space, which they might well need to do in order to have enough suitable material to build a Dyson sphere.
One would think that if that were the case we'd notice some other strange anomalies in the area as well, but if everything else looks normal, it's less likely to be aliens and more likely to be some unknown phenomenon that we don't understand well or at all.
If more women don't want to get involved in STEM I wouldn't be surprised if it's because of the constantly reinforced narrative of how much sexism they'll face, which is mainly put forward by people who think it that sexism exist because there isn't a perfect 50/50 gender ratio and refuse to consider any explanation for this other than sexism.
It sounds as though current universities should modify their classes to incorporate the kinds activities that people are only learning in a co-op or on the job. I would imagine a testing course where you actually use different types of testing tools and practices is far more useful than sitting in a lecture and just learning words without applying anything.
While it's obvious that not everything can be covered in four years and that some things are incredibly niche, there's enough general stuff that's used everywhere, that it is a bit troubling that those kinds of things aren't being taught. I suspect a lot of colleges are more caught up in getting research grants than they are concerned about providing a quality education or that the tenure committee doesn't care how good of an instructor you are if you're not publishing research.
If you've got Star Trek levels of space technology, you can probably start growing babies inside of a tube after combining the sperm and egg from the parents. It wouldn't inconvenience the woman with the pregnancy, and if the technology is really good, it would probably be better for the development of the fetus as well as nutrition levels could be carefully controlled.
We'd likely see a GATTACA-style eugenics program being put in place, because once we have machines that can completely replace humans for menial jobs, there isn't much value in any human that can't reasonably contribute to society in any way. The tricky part is going to be the transition where those people don't have jobs and are complete have-nots and getting to the point where society is prosperous enough that it doesn't matter that they can't contribute as long as they aren't committing crime, etc. as there's enough wealth for them to sit around doing nothing.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
For all man's accomplishments, we're still largely at a tribal stage where we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so. It's millions of years of evolutionary baggage that we need to overcome as we move forward.
You could try out Jenkins (a fork of Hudson) which is under active development and integrates fairly well with some of the other project management tools (e.g. Jira, Trac, etc.) people tend to use for bug tracking. Its also FOSS and under active development.
It's got a fair bit of community support in terms of plugins, so even if you're doing something a little bit niche, there's a reasonable chance that someone else might have built a plugin to solve those needs.
Probably because they had no real business model beyond attract users for a long time which meant they needed to take on venture capital to pay for everything. The VCs know that the best way to get their payout is to take the company public and cash in on the IPO.
Not all of those areas where the oil boom is occurring were terribly high up the socioeconomic ladder before the boom started (and some were still recovering from when oil prices tanked in the 80s and things collapsed) and suddenly giving someone who's been poor a large amount of money doesn't make them a wise investor.
You also get a lot of people coming in from outside the area, so there's not always a lot of sense of community (sometimes the influx of money increases the rent so much that the locals are essentially forced out) in these places, never mind the increase in drugs and other crime that generally follows in the wake of these types of economic booms. Add to that local social services that are in no way funded or staffed to meet the increasing needs and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
There is some speculation that Apple will eventually ditch Intel and start using their own ARM chips at some point in the future. I don't think they'll do it next year, but I'm willing to bet that they'll have a non iOS product using an ARM SoC by 2020. Remember that before they went to Intel, Mac OS used IBM's POWER architecture and that they had an internal build of Mac OS that ran on x86 in development for years before it was ever released. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that they were doing the same thing with ARM.
It isn't a matter of curing the existing problem. That never really goes away because as you decrease the load, it becomes a more feasible travel option for individuals. You could have a free, fast, and efficient public system and people would still drive because it's a little more convenient to have a personal vehicle and the less congested the roads are, the faster you can get there and the more the roads fill up, the more convenient the alternatives become.
The problem is that if you add more traffic to Seattle's already over-congested system, it becomes an even bigger problem. Just having the option to get to the city center from the outlying communities quickly would cut down on the problem a lot and allow for more growth.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been known for a while. In the 80's Kansas City ended up spending $2 billion in school funding over roughly a decade after a court ruling from a federal judge to improve their schools and it did nothing to improve education attainment despite having the highest spending per pupil in the nation. Education isn't something you can throw money at to fix. If you're trying to make a fundamentally flawed system work, additional funding won't achieve anything.
This doesn't seem like a bad idea. The writing from Square really started to go downhill towards the end of the PlayStation era any the majority of roles in their role playing games were those of whinny teens with an absurd sense of fashion. Perhaps in remaking the older games they'll learn something about storytelling and make new games where I'm not cheering for the villain because of my disdain for the protagonists.
Couldn't an attacker still exploit the vulnerability by incrementally making small adjustments that fall within the differential though? Just because it can prevent a single large inadvertent mistake doesn't mean it's completely safe.
Because the people who tend to buy into this crap believe that anything other than an even gender/sex ratio must be due to discrimination and couldn't possibly be explained by other causes such as differences in the male and female brains over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution that shape our culture just as much as societal norms and influence vocational interests.
As such, they either don't regard the treatment as sexist or racist, or if they do see it that way feel that it is justified in order to treat the imagined issue of discrimination in hiring practices, etc. that must be to blame for the imbalance.
Does it actually work like a meter though? Is it constantly running and incriminating the fare based on distance traveled or time? That's what a meter in a taxi does. If a phone is just calculating a route from the current location to the destination and deriving cost from that, it's not a meter. Just because they both determine the cost of a ride does not mean that they are equivalent.
How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.
You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve (and hope that don't just change it later) and manually inspect it for nefarious code, which isn't always possible to detect if it's obfuscated sufficiently well or exploits a previously unknown attack vector. That's already more work than anyone is willing to put up with just to serve some ads, so no one will bother doing it.
Do we really need to start perceiving whether people who might perceive something as a slight actually will? If you want to complain about people being overly politically correct and getting bent out of shape over something inconsequential, at least let them get bent out of shape about it first before whining about it or you end up looking just as petty.
Moore's law is about transistor density, not the number of cores or their performance.
We've reached a point where the amount of computational power in the chips that are being made is in excess of what the majority of consumers need so instead of further increasing the number of cores, which is pointless for most workloads or making the individual cores more powerful, the density improvements are being used to make smaller chips that are more power efficient because the most pervasive computers these days are those which are battery powered.
My phone has more computational power than my desktop computer from 10 years ago. Moore's law might be slowing down due to physical limitations as we move closer to chip designs with features that are only a few atoms thick, but we're still moving forward and should for a few more generations of chips even if it's not quite at the original pace, which isn't that big of a deal for most users anyways.
Explain Switzerland. Among the highest countries in terms of per capita gun ownership and also among the lowest in terms of crime (not just gun violence).
/. I did a quick correlation between gun ownership rates and crime rates from data available on Wikipedia and there wasn't much of a strong correlation ( r = ~.2 or thereabouts I think) as one might expect.
In a previous gun-related story on
Some people are idiots and we have to accept that they may be irresponsible and cause harm. However, that should not be cause to take those rights away from everyone. Alcohol causes far more deaths per year than guns do. Should we reenact prohibition?
What contextual information might put the "one toddler a week" meme into perspective, and make it seem less important?
I'd probably check into how many of them are stealing candy from other toddlers and physically striking each other. Kind of hard to play up toddler gun violence when you look at the out of control prevalence of toddler theft and assault.
You could probably attack it from a women's rights perspective as well. Don't think of it as toddler gun violence so much as an unusually late term abortion. If Disney can still claim full control of an animated cartoon over 70 years after drawing it, clearly we can extend the same rights to allow women to have some control over their offspring a few years after their birth. If you don't support sixteenth trimester abortions, you clearly hate women!
I'm sure there are other angles to work, but those seem like a good start.
I think it's typically used to mean a pretentious or ostentatious person or at least that's how it comes off in this case. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a simple game (some are just as enjoyable as bigger budget games) but attempting to pass it off as something more than that is what tends to draw the hipster label.
so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?
Internet pedants.
He doesn't need to be a climatologist to look at climate models and see that their predictions firstly do not hold after a certain point and second that for more recent models, that the amount of deviation after some threshold is larger than it was for earlier models.
I don't know whether that statement is actually true (but it is testable) but I suspect that neither of us are climatologists, but we could both gather and analyze the data and could ourselves reach the same conclusion. There's a difference between saying all of climatology is bunk and pointing out that the predictions made by their models have been wrong and that also that the magnitude of the error is larger for newer models. The only potential error made is that we're trusting that as a scientist he really has conducted a rigorous study (i.e. looked as as much available data as possible) to reach his conclusions. I would almost expect that if he went to the trouble of actually looking into this himself, that he would have documented his methodologies and published his findings.
Also, just because all of the models have been wrong or imperfect does not imply that we can't create a working one, simply that it might take a long time so it's not a good idea to put a lot of faith into an arbitrary model unless it starts to show good long-term prediction abilities. It supposedly took Edison hundreds of attempts to get a working light bulb. It may take that many failures in our climate models until we can accurately account for the things that we're currently missing.
Everyone eventually gets sick and likely ends up soaking up huge medical bills. You could be perfectly healthy all your life but still wind up with cancer and an expensive treatment.
The only alternative is some kine of Logan's Run approach, but I don't think anyone will be lining up for that.
What you fail to consider is that what is expensive as hell today, will only get cheaper in time as technology improves. In 200 years, curing cancer might be as easy as taking some over the counter medication that's cheaply available. Look back at the biggest killers from 200 years ago and we've eliminated a lot of them or made it relatively inexpensive to deal with them. The difficult problems now are next centuries low hanging fruit and we don't get to that point without spending a lot of resources to solve those problems.
Well it's easy to test. If we continue to observe it over time and we keep seeing less and less light, which one would expect as they construct more and more of the sphere, then the hypothesis becomes more likely.
Of course given the distance of this star, if they were building a Dyson sphere, it might be finished by now (we'd only being seeing construction progress from ~1,500 years ago) and a civilization advanced enough to do that could probably travel the vast expanses of space, which they might well need to do in order to have enough suitable material to build a Dyson sphere.
One would think that if that were the case we'd notice some other strange anomalies in the area as well, but if everything else looks normal, it's less likely to be aliens and more likely to be some unknown phenomenon that we don't understand well or at all.
If more women don't want to get involved in STEM I wouldn't be surprised if it's because of the constantly reinforced narrative of how much sexism they'll face, which is mainly put forward by people who think it that sexism exist because there isn't a perfect 50/50 gender ratio and refuse to consider any explanation for this other than sexism.
It sounds as though current universities should modify their classes to incorporate the kinds activities that people are only learning in a co-op or on the job. I would imagine a testing course where you actually use different types of testing tools and practices is far more useful than sitting in a lecture and just learning words without applying anything.
While it's obvious that not everything can be covered in four years and that some things are incredibly niche, there's enough general stuff that's used everywhere, that it is a bit troubling that those kinds of things aren't being taught. I suspect a lot of colleges are more caught up in getting research grants than they are concerned about providing a quality education or that the tenure committee doesn't care how good of an instructor you are if you're not publishing research.
If you've got Star Trek levels of space technology, you can probably start growing babies inside of a tube after combining the sperm and egg from the parents. It wouldn't inconvenience the woman with the pregnancy, and if the technology is really good, it would probably be better for the development of the fetus as well as nutrition levels could be carefully controlled.
We'd likely see a GATTACA-style eugenics program being put in place, because once we have machines that can completely replace humans for menial jobs, there isn't much value in any human that can't reasonably contribute to society in any way. The tricky part is going to be the transition where those people don't have jobs and are complete have-nots and getting to the point where society is prosperous enough that it doesn't matter that they can't contribute as long as they aren't committing crime, etc. as there's enough wealth for them to sit around doing nothing.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
For all man's accomplishments, we're still largely at a tribal stage where we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so. It's millions of years of evolutionary baggage that we need to overcome as we move forward.
You could try out Jenkins (a fork of Hudson) which is under active development and integrates fairly well with some of the other project management tools (e.g. Jira, Trac, etc.) people tend to use for bug tracking. Its also FOSS and under active development.
It's got a fair bit of community support in terms of plugins, so even if you're doing something a little bit niche, there's a reasonable chance that someone else might have built a plugin to solve those needs.
When's her birthday, because being able to sing "Happy birthday to Tu Youyou" is way to awesome to miss.
Probably because they had no real business model beyond attract users for a long time which meant they needed to take on venture capital to pay for everything. The VCs know that the best way to get their payout is to take the company public and cash in on the IPO.
Not all of those areas where the oil boom is occurring were terribly high up the socioeconomic ladder before the boom started (and some were still recovering from when oil prices tanked in the 80s and things collapsed) and suddenly giving someone who's been poor a large amount of money doesn't make them a wise investor.
You also get a lot of people coming in from outside the area, so there's not always a lot of sense of community (sometimes the influx of money increases the rent so much that the locals are essentially forced out) in these places, never mind the increase in drugs and other crime that generally follows in the wake of these types of economic booms. Add to that local social services that are in no way funded or staffed to meet the increasing needs and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
There is some speculation that Apple will eventually ditch Intel and start using their own ARM chips at some point in the future. I don't think they'll do it next year, but I'm willing to bet that they'll have a non iOS product using an ARM SoC by 2020. Remember that before they went to Intel, Mac OS used IBM's POWER architecture and that they had an internal build of Mac OS that ran on x86 in development for years before it was ever released. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that they were doing the same thing with ARM.
It isn't a matter of curing the existing problem. That never really goes away because as you decrease the load, it becomes a more feasible travel option for individuals. You could have a free, fast, and efficient public system and people would still drive because it's a little more convenient to have a personal vehicle and the less congested the roads are, the faster you can get there and the more the roads fill up, the more convenient the alternatives become.
The problem is that if you add more traffic to Seattle's already over-congested system, it becomes an even bigger problem. Just having the option to get to the city center from the outlying communities quickly would cut down on the problem a lot and allow for more growth.