It does for me. In place of the ads there's the text "Search the Web with Yahoo!" and a second search box. Kind of nice that Google doesn't feel the need to resort to that, thought it's not really bothersome since it only takes the place of ads.
True, but the 5% would assume complete dependence which is as crazy as assuming complete independence. If one takes a single approximation, independence is usually a lot closer to reality than total dependence. While the latter is possible if there is some sort of unforeseen "fatal flaw", such a flaw is likely to show up in testing. IOW, experimentally measured failure rates are often fairly independent, whereas projected failure rates are often more dependent than they are supposed to be.
All of this is of course silly, since the 5% rate simply came out of an AC's orifice.
Well, now you know, and more importantly, anyone who comes reading along will see both posts and not get the wrong idea. To grill, and to be grilled is the way of the Internet, and I have certainly gotten grilled before. Harbor no bad feelings and you'll be the better for it.
because each defensive rocket they fire is an indepedent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities.
The likelihood of each of those rockets successfully destroy the incoming missile is 5%, and they can all fail at the same point as each other.
So, now you are saying they aren't independent? A sentence earlier you claimed they were.
So, in the end, the chance to stop the incoming missile is only 5%.
I await your assumptions and calculation that comes up with this result. Then we can discuss it.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, but there is something wrong when you try to spread your incorrect view. I suggest taking a stats class, or sitting down with a book, and learning.
I would guess it was so they could use low-power APs. Probably easier to get FAA approval for something running in the bluetooth power range rather than a typical AP.
The sad thing is the article teaches people the tools but not when to apply them. For example, it introduces the normal distribution, but no tests to check the normal assumption on a dataset are given. It also ignores the incredibly important subject of outliers. So in the end, he balances his game using a mean and variance, when its quite likely that a median and percentiles would have been better. Oh well.
I am constantly amazed at how much game programmers know about the mathematics and algorithms for computer graphics, and how little they know of everything else. And if you want to help them out by writing something, it is usually the case that a crap article or book on the subject has already been written by a game programmer.
Well, in that case I'll concede that you are being consistent, even if we don't ultimately agree. Hopefully our exchange will make other people stop and think when they read it, as a lot of people don't apply the same standard across the board.
Well, CmdrTaco can post articles, I can't. It's his blog, not mine. You seem to define a discussion site as one where nobody will RTFA. I guess by that definition, slashdot certainly isn't a blog. I usually do read the articles though, so maybe I see it differently. To each their own.
They don't have the right to shout anything at the patients there.
So, would you like that to apply to war protesters as well? In particular, those who blockage recruitment centers and yell all sorts of things to anyone going inside. As soon as you cut freedom of speech into acceptable and unacceptable topics, you open a very large can of worms. It's best not to go there. Speech should be protected, as long as it stays exactly that: speech.
If you have a problem with abortion, talk to your congressmen and your state government. If 2/3 of the country agrees with you, you might be able to change things. Until then, people have the right to privacy.
That's absurd. How about: "If you have a problem with the Iraq war, talk to your government. Maybe they will change. Until then, members of the military have a right to privacy. No protesting." You can't cut free speech with "right" and "wrong" topics. And anyway, I expressed no opinion about abortion. Rather I attempted to express that guilt by association is a very bad idea: "Some protesters are murderers, therefore all protests should be banned and protesters should be arrested." That flawed argument could jail everyone based on some tenuous association with group containing criminals.
Try not to let your opinion on a particular issue modulate your belief in freedom of speech.
I think you are being blinded by intent; It's not an issue of what it is supposed to mean, but rather one of everything it could be interpreted to mean.
Let's say I run a popular website to stimulate a grass-roots election effort (thus 19 applies). The site gets millions of hits before an election, and my hosting is expensive (I never expected that kind of bandwidth usage!), so I have to pay $25k (this meets part B). I'm running out of money, and politician Bill McGreedy pays me $1 to "keep up the good work" (this meets part A). Oops. Now, this might get shot down at trial if the judge is a nice guy, since the case doesn't match the true intent of the law. However, you can bet your ass I'll need a good lawyer, and will have to go through a trial. Given the speed of the legal system, it won't be resolved until after the election, either. I think another poster had a more likely form of misuse however, which is that the bill can be used to assert hidden payment of bloggers and thus launch an investigation of them. That will either shut the blogger up or slow them down.
We don't need this law to "protect" us; We only need to tell people that random bloggers, just like people you meet on the street, might be lying. Don't trust random people you don't know -- It's that simple. A lying blog can always be countered with another blog which digs up the truth, and that is the appropriate way to respond.
Finally, I don't see the difference between one blogger paid 50k per quarter and 10 bloggers paid $5k per quarter. The latter is a yet more sinister approximation of a "grass-roots" effort, and would be completely legal under this (now defunct) part of the law.
So to recap, this law can be used for nuisance attacks, is based on the fundamentally bad assumption that you should be able to trust random people on the internet, and has a large loophole for exactly the type of shillery it is supposed to stop. Well intentioned as it may have been, I say good riddance.
yeah, so what? Those features are typical of a news site with a discussion forum.
While I hate strict definitions, if this were a discussion forum, we'd be able to post our own topics. We can't. We can only reply to the top-level stories. That makes it a lot more like a blog -- with a lot of comments.
GP is right on the money. It is the extent to which a law can be interpreted and warped which is important, not the intent. If the DMCA taught us anything, it was exactly that.
Ok, but that's a non-unique argument. If government search standards are as low as you describe, there are dozens, if not hundreds of laws or regulations law enforcement could already use as an excuse to harass you.
Adding yet another way will only make that harassment even more convenient. That seems like the wrong direction to go.
The issue in your scenario is the lax requirements for warrants, not the lobbyist law.
Politicians, by and large, are lawyers. Washington DC also has the highest density of lawyers in the world. It doesn't matter how strict you make warrant requirements, really good lawyers will always find a way. Putting another tool in their toolbox and saying we should fix the problem another way doesn't sound like a step forward.
Who bombs clinics, shoots doctors, and wants to jail anyone involved in abortions?
So if 1/1000 protesters are violent, we should jail them all? I guess you think we should jail all the Muslims too, since a small minority are terrorists. You must also think that the Japanese interment camps were a good idea in WW2, since some of them probably were spies. I'm glad you are such a critical thinker!
Violent protest is wrong, and should be punished. However that's absolutely no excuse to punish non-violent protesters who only happen to argue the same side of the issue. That's simply madness, and even if one case might be "good", overall that approach would end up being a very, very bad thing. Thanks for reminding me to donate to the ACLU.
Actually you can't simplify it like that. A blogger that is paid $1 by a client, and then spends $25,000 of his own money running his website also qualifies under the definition given in (19). In other words, if you happen to run a wildly successful political site, accepting donations could possibly turn you into a lobbying firm. Wonderful.
And don't say "But that's not the intent!", as that has nothing to do with it. It says what it says, just like the DMCA anti-circumvention clause, which wasn't intended to be abused. We all know how that turned out.
Why is so hard to accept that bloggers could have hidden motives? Money is only one of many reasons a blogger might not tell the truth. This isn't really news at all, unless you really do believe everything you read. OMG SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET LIED!
One thing to remember is that you can do both telecommuting and traditional office work in a given week, and thus achieve whatever balance you want of advancement-vs-convenience. I know some people who telecommute two or three days a week, giving them a fairly flexible work week, but still allowing time for normal meetings and face-time at the office. Obviously this won't work if you're telecommuting across states, but its a good way for local employees to not waste as much time commuting.
Remember we're talking about Nobel prizes as a primary (albeit flawed) metric. That often entails a 20-30+ year lag from when the actual research took place. While WW2 probably doesn't affect Europe much now, I'm sure it's effects were still being felt 30 years ago; One country (Germany) was literally split in two...
Now, that's not to say that there aren't significant differences between Universities in the US and EU, and any one of those could cause the discrepancy. However, effects from even an old war cannot necessarily be ignored.
Hm, that's too bad. The author of the study would now say that your university is in dire straits now, after a formerly being world class research institution. Isn't it fun to play with sparse sample sizes? It's almost like reading tarot cards.
This "study" is at best a crude approximation, and even then it isn't complete in terms of data. They left off my school, for example. I'm sure some others probably got stiffed too. Of course, I don't think you can fit a reliable trend to three data points anyway -- especially for something highly time delayed such as Nobel prizes.
Carnegie Mellon University 1947-1966: 0 1967-1986: 3 1987-2006: 7
He seems to be a junior Electrical/Computer Engineering major at Carnegie Mellon. Of course this setup might be for his original home, wherever that happens to be. Hopefully he asks some MechE friends about heat exchangers, but he gets props from me for actually building something instead of just talking about it.
How is the heat from the internal loop transferred to seawater? Is some seawater pumped through a heat exchanger, or is the internal water piped near the "skin" of the submarine to radiate the heat? Just curious...
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. Even when I switch off javascript for yahoo, it still pops up for me.
Before the first result, is says "Search the Web with Yahoo!" and gives me a second search box. I'm using Firefox on Linux.
It does for me. In place of the ads there's the text "Search the Web with Yahoo!" and a second search box. Kind of nice that Google doesn't feel the need to resort to that, thought it's not really bothersome since it only takes the place of ads.
True, but the 5% would assume complete dependence which is as crazy as assuming complete independence. If one takes a single approximation, independence is usually a lot closer to reality than total dependence. While the latter is possible if there is some sort of unforeseen "fatal flaw", such a flaw is likely to show up in testing. IOW, experimentally measured failure rates are often fairly independent, whereas projected failure rates are often more dependent than they are supposed to be.
All of this is of course silly, since the 5% rate simply came out of an AC's orifice.
Well, now you know, and more importantly, anyone who comes reading along will see both posts and not get the wrong idea. To grill, and to be grilled is the way of the Internet, and I have certainly gotten grilled before. Harbor no bad feelings and you'll be the better for it.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, but there is something wrong when you try to spread your incorrect view. I suggest taking a stats class, or sitting down with a book, and learning.
I would guess it was so they could use low-power APs. Probably easier to get FAA approval for something running in the bluetooth power range rather than a typical AP.
The sad thing is the article teaches people the tools but not when to apply them. For example, it introduces the normal distribution, but no tests to check the normal assumption on a dataset are given. It also ignores the incredibly important subject of outliers. So in the end, he balances his game using a mean and variance, when its quite likely that a median and percentiles would have been better. Oh well.
I am constantly amazed at how much game programmers know about the mathematics and algorithms for computer graphics, and how little they know of everything else. And if you want to help them out by writing something, it is usually the case that a crap article or book on the subject has already been written by a game programmer.
Well, in that case I'll concede that you are being consistent, even if we don't ultimately agree. Hopefully our exchange will make other people stop and think when they read it, as a lot of people don't apply the same standard across the board.
Well, CmdrTaco can post articles, I can't. It's his blog, not mine. You seem to define a discussion site as one where nobody will RTFA. I guess by that definition, slashdot certainly isn't a blog. I usually do read the articles though, so maybe I see it differently. To each their own.
They don't have the right to shout anything at the patients there.
So, would you like that to apply to war protesters as well? In particular, those who blockage recruitment centers and yell all sorts of things to anyone going inside. As soon as you cut freedom of speech into acceptable and unacceptable topics, you open a very large can of worms. It's best not to go there. Speech should be protected, as long as it stays exactly that: speech.
If you have a problem with abortion, talk to your congressmen and your state government. If 2/3 of the country agrees with you, you might be able to change things. Until then, people have the right to privacy.
That's absurd. How about: "If you have a problem with the Iraq war, talk to your government. Maybe they will change. Until then, members of the military have a right to privacy. No protesting." You can't cut free speech with "right" and "wrong" topics. And anyway, I expressed no opinion about abortion. Rather I attempted to express that guilt by association is a very bad idea: "Some protesters are murderers, therefore all protests should be banned and protesters should be arrested." That flawed argument could jail everyone based on some tenuous association with group containing criminals.
Try not to let your opinion on a particular issue modulate your belief in freedom of speech.
I think you are being blinded by intent; It's not an issue of what it is supposed to mean, but rather one of everything it could be interpreted to mean.
Let's say I run a popular website to stimulate a grass-roots election effort (thus 19 applies). The site gets millions of hits before an election, and my hosting is expensive (I never expected that kind of bandwidth usage!), so I have to pay $25k (this meets part B). I'm running out of money, and politician Bill McGreedy pays me $1 to "keep up the good work" (this meets part A). Oops. Now, this might get shot down at trial if the judge is a nice guy, since the case doesn't match the true intent of the law. However, you can bet your ass I'll need a good lawyer, and will have to go through a trial. Given the speed of the legal system, it won't be resolved until after the election, either. I think another poster had a more likely form of misuse however, which is that the bill can be used to assert hidden payment of bloggers and thus launch an investigation of them. That will either shut the blogger up or slow them down.
We don't need this law to "protect" us; We only need to tell people that random bloggers, just like people you meet on the street, might be lying. Don't trust random people you don't know -- It's that simple. A lying blog can always be countered with another blog which digs up the truth, and that is the appropriate way to respond.
Finally, I don't see the difference between one blogger paid 50k per quarter and 10 bloggers paid $5k per quarter. The latter is a yet more sinister approximation of a "grass-roots" effort, and would be completely legal under this (now defunct) part of the law.
So to recap, this law can be used for nuisance attacks, is based on the fundamentally bad assumption that you should be able to trust random people on the internet, and has a large loophole for exactly the type of shillery it is supposed to stop. Well intentioned as it may have been, I say good riddance.
yeah, so what? Those features are typical of a news site with a discussion forum.
While I hate strict definitions, if this were a discussion forum, we'd be able to post our own topics. We can't. We can only reply to the top-level stories. That makes it a lot more like a blog -- with a lot of comments.
GP is right on the money. It is the extent to which a law can be interpreted and warped which is important, not the intent. If the DMCA taught us anything, it was exactly that.
Ok, but that's a non-unique argument. If government search standards are as low as you describe, there are dozens, if not hundreds of laws or regulations law enforcement could already use as an excuse to harass you.
Adding yet another way will only make that harassment even more convenient. That seems like the wrong direction to go.
The issue in your scenario is the lax requirements for warrants, not the lobbyist law.
Politicians, by and large, are lawyers. Washington DC also has the highest density of lawyers in the world. It doesn't matter how strict you make warrant requirements, really good lawyers will always find a way. Putting another tool in their toolbox and saying we should fix the problem another way doesn't sound like a step forward.
Who bombs clinics, shoots doctors, and wants to jail anyone involved in abortions?
So if 1/1000 protesters are violent, we should jail them all? I guess you think we should jail all the Muslims too, since a small minority are terrorists. You must also think that the Japanese interment camps were a good idea in WW2, since some of them probably were spies. I'm glad you are such a critical thinker!
Violent protest is wrong, and should be punished. However that's absolutely no excuse to punish non-violent protesters who only happen to argue the same side of the issue. That's simply madness, and even if one case might be "good", overall that approach would end up being a very, very bad thing. Thanks for reminding me to donate to the ACLU.
And that was exactly his point, dumbass.
Actually you can't simplify it like that. A blogger that is paid $1 by a client, and then spends $25,000 of his own money running his website also qualifies under the definition given in (19). In other words, if you happen to run a wildly successful political site, accepting donations could possibly turn you into a lobbying firm. Wonderful.
And don't say "But that's not the intent!", as that has nothing to do with it. It says what it says, just like the DMCA anti-circumvention clause, which wasn't intended to be abused. We all know how that turned out.
Why is so hard to accept that bloggers could have hidden motives? Money is only one of many reasons a blogger might not tell the truth. This isn't really news at all, unless you really do believe everything you read. OMG SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET LIED!
One thing to remember is that you can do both telecommuting and traditional office work in a given week, and thus achieve whatever balance you want of advancement-vs-convenience. I know some people who telecommute two or three days a week, giving them a fairly flexible work week, but still allowing time for normal meetings and face-time at the office. Obviously this won't work if you're telecommuting across states, but its a good way for local employees to not waste as much time commuting.
Well said. Too bad I don't have any points.
Remember we're talking about Nobel prizes as a primary (albeit flawed) metric. That often entails a 20-30+ year lag from when the actual research took place. While WW2 probably doesn't affect Europe much now, I'm sure it's effects were still being felt 30 years ago; One country (Germany) was literally split in two...
Now, that's not to say that there aren't significant differences between Universities in the US and EU, and any one of those could cause the discrepancy. However, effects from even an old war cannot necessarily be ignored.
Hm, that's too bad. The author of the study would now say that your university is in dire straits now, after a formerly being world class research institution. Isn't it fun to play with sparse sample sizes? It's almost like reading tarot cards.
This "study" is at best a crude approximation, and even then it isn't complete in terms of data. They left off my school, for example. I'm sure some others probably got stiffed too. Of course, I don't think you can fit a reliable trend to three data points anyway -- especially for something highly time delayed such as Nobel prizes.
Carnegie Mellon University
1947-1966: 0
1967-1986: 3
1987-2006: 7
He seems to be a junior Electrical/Computer Engineering major at Carnegie Mellon. Of course this setup might be for his original home, wherever that happens to be. Hopefully he asks some MechE friends about heat exchangers, but he gets props from me for actually building something instead of just talking about it.
How is the heat from the internal loop transferred to seawater? Is some seawater pumped through a heat exchanger, or is the internal water piped near the "skin" of the submarine to radiate the heat? Just curious...