In at least my branch of Computer Science, both Journals and Conferences count as long as the conference is good (i.e. peer reviewed and probably a 30-40% accept rate which is usually printed in the forward material of the proceedings). Workshops don't count if you are applying for a professorship, but definitely count if you're an undergrad applying to grad school. Symposiums fall somewhere in between. Some "symposiums" are just big workshops and some are conferences that kept their old name.
Bottom line: Ask your Professor. He or she will be able to tell you what if anything this conference is worth.
The judge points out that the.se prosecutor has expressed clear intent to prosecute, but that.se's procedures require investigation before prosecution.
But investigation doesn't require Assanage. Let.se finish their investigation. Once they're done with that *then* we can talk extraditing Assanage.
This is setting a precedent of allowing extradition for the sake of investigation rather than prosecution which is significant since the UK has a common law system where precedent matters. This precedent will be used.
The government already has, and has long had the power to sieze vehicles in an emergency. To compell HAM operators to work with them or to shut down. To take over food supplies/transport.
I'm calling bullsh... er... "citation needed" on that.
I agree. After a "Page down" I now have to scroll back up to read the three lines being covered by the header bar. This isn't just a cosmetic thing. It is a genuine hindrance to usability.
A full answer to that delves into a lot of literary analysis. But basically it amounts to trying to understand the intent of the author. For example, even the most reputable, reliable newspapers include factual information right next to allegorical metaphors. For example they might say "The Tigers slaughtered(metaphor) the Hoosiers (colloquial name) in a 37-2(fact) landslide(metaphor)". A completely literal reading would make you think some kind of large cats had committed mass murder using dirt. On the other hand it isn't proper to dismiss the whole sentence as simply a moral allegory about victory and loss but not describing actual events. A correct reading of the text requires understanding it within the appropriate literary and cultural contexts and yields an interpretation that the sentence is about a true historical event but uses metaphoric and colloquial language.
This isn't to say it is always easy to do this with the Bible. Much time has transpired making it sometimes difficult to understand the appropriate literary and cultural context (e.g. unless you already knew from other sources written in the same time and culture, you'd never notice that "foot" is often a euphemism). Many parts are still debated even among those who study this stuff full time. (These debates are not limited to religious circles; academics in ancient literature also get involved.)
It's impossible for me to give a complete description of every subtly, but in practical terms, maybe the following rules of thumb will help. Most parts can be read plainly as it is easy to identify historical parts (e.g. Chronicals) versus poetic parts (e.g. Psalms). However, Genesis (at least the parts before Abraham), Revelations and anything involving prophecy should be read as describing true events but through a very thick layer of literary styling. Also the book of Job is debated as to whether it is simply a morality tail or whether the man actually exists. Parts on moral teaching (e.g. the sermon on the mount, the book of Romans through the book of Jude) might in one sense be historical (e.g. describing an actual sermon) but interpreting the teachings is often subtle (e.g. John 13, or the passages on turning the other cheek).
Note that even in the parts that generally should be read plainly, you have to be aware of the odd euphemism. For example, I've already mentioned "foot" but others abound (and are often debated). Consider Proverbs 30:20 and the word "eat" or Genesis 24:2 and the word "thigh". Another good one is 1st Samuel 24:3 where the King James Version says "Saul went in to cover his feet". Unfortunately there is no good rule of thumb for spotting these, except perhaps to notice when something just doesn't sound quite right (e.g. why is he covering his feet?) but then you probably still wouldn't spot some euphemisms like the one with "thigh".
I'm not sure how much this helps, but I offer it for what it's worth.
Agreed. But I think it can change for the better. For example, "cop loyalty" has led to many a cover up, but consider if that loyalty were redirected from "I'm loyal to my brothers so I won't let this get out" to "I'm loyal to my brothers so I won't let another cop sully their reputation". A small change, but now instead of cover ups we have self enforcement.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? Maybe not. I have no first hand experience but my understanding is certain parts of the military exhibit this second form of loyalty quite strongly.
Remember "perp = perpetrator != suspect != citizen". It's all right to refer to the "perpetrator of a crime" as a fill in the blank when you don't know who did the crime, but when referring to an actual person, they are at best a suspect. And only if you actually suspect them of committing a crime.
I know "perp" sounds cool, but if used improperly it is prejudicial to justice.
Individually, the stories are weak, but taken together, they show a pattern of behavior.
Two proven events show a pattern of behaviour. All we have now are two people who (IIUC) admit to conferring with each other before making these accusations. Genuinely independent accusations may mutually strengthen the likelihood of their truth as they point to a common cause (e.g. a pattern of behaviour). But with previous collaboration, the accusations are no longer independent. The collaboration is a common cause that overshadows other causes.
Proposed Amendment: Money and services provided by the federal government to the states or the citizens there of shall not be determined in whole or in part based on the policies or laws of said state.
In one fell swoop, this fixes RealID, drinking age, etc. I've thought about this idea for a while, but I have no idea how to get this amendment off the ground. It also probably needs some word-smithing to close loopholes and prevent unintended consequences.
If you base your crypto method on something not vulnerable to to a quantum fourier transform, or if, with your decryption method you absolutely must get the right answer, you can end up back at brute force.
First half: right. Second half: misleading.
If you work the same factorization problem multiple times with a quantum computer, the likelihood that all of those factorizations are wrong decays exponentially with the number of times you work the problem. It is trivial to check which factorization is right using a classical computer.
So yes, quantum cracking will say "Could Not Crack" some percent of the time, but that percentage can easily be made as small as you want just by resubmitting the problem to the quantum computer or running quantum computers in parallel. If it fails 10% of the time, just run it 20 times and it will fail only 10^-20 of the time.
The hard part as you mention is that getting a quantum computer with enough bits is really hard. It's not like adding RAM to classical computers, in a quantum computer each bit is harder to add than the last one. I don't remember how much harder, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was twice as hard. Given that last I checked (5 years ago) we were only up to 4-5 bits, we have a ways to go before we get up to 128 bits.
The rules have no concept of a rider only of an amendment and as far as the rules go of course amendments are permitted if the majority agrees with the amendment. So it isn't really just a congressman's whim. In real life that Simpson's skit would look more like:
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the pervert amendment?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Amendment defeated. All in favor of the Springfield bill?
FLOOR: Yea!
SPEAKER: BIll passed.
If the rider is part of the introduced bill as introduced then the introducing congressman (or committee) can put whatever he wants in the bill. In theory, once it is introduced the majority can then amend the rider out of the bill.
The problem is that riders are often in the interests of the majority or almost majority. They are a good way to garner a few extra votes as well as to pass unpopular legislation. I agree this is a problem since it defeats the purpose of legislative debate but how would you fix it? Every fix I can think of eventually trusts someone to be incorruptible enough to fairly decide what is or isn't a rider and I don't think anyone like that exists in Washington. If you know of a way I'm seriously interested in hearing it.
What is this "vote on article" vs "vote on law as a whole" business? I get the idea (all parts of the law and the law as a whole must pass), but I'm currius what implications that has in practice.
(If it matters, I'm coming from the US model where the parts of a bill are hammered out in committee, then it goes to the full senate/house as a single entity. Amendments may be voted on at that point, but at the end of the day only the bill as a whole needs to pass not the individual parts.)
Nicely written and very moving... but moving to where? What are we to do about it? At the local and state level, protests and talking to representatives can be quite effective, but at the federal level no so much(*). As an average man with a busy life to live, what specifically am I supposed to do?
(*) Corollary: Restricted federal power and more state power makes it easier for citizens to be involved. See the far to little practiced Principal of Subsidiarity.
Cite me one example of a "well functioning" free market that has existed without externalities, regulation, protectionism, network effects, AND which operates with consumers with perfect knowledge making rational choices
Copper. Wood (modulo non-market related EPA regulation). Most industrial raw resources.
Which specialist problem would SHA3b have been for? Any random specialist problem or is there a particularly important specialist problem? The former doesn't sound very useful, but I don't know what the later would be.
That line of argument sounds like it could invert just about any sort of causality.
For example, thesis: water damage causes flooding. Something other than water damage started the flooding, but then the flooding started the water damage and from that point on the water damage caused all the further flooding until again something caused it to stop.
It's all consistent with water damage causing flooding you see in that middle time period.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (Or in this case "Ante hoc ergo propter hoc".)
DC also doesn't have to deal with keeping both ends of the transmission line in phase whereas AC does. This is why transmission lines over the rocky mountains are DC as the east and west US power grids are not phase synced.
Slashdot Mirror
In at least my branch of Computer Science, both Journals and Conferences count as long as the conference is good (i.e. peer reviewed and probably a 30-40% accept rate which is usually printed in the forward material of the proceedings). Workshops don't count if you are applying for a professorship, but definitely count if you're an undergrad applying to grad school. Symposiums fall somewhere in between. Some "symposiums" are just big workshops and some are conferences that kept their old name.
Bottom line: Ask your Professor. He or she will be able to tell you what if anything this conference is worth.
The judge points out that the .se prosecutor has expressed clear intent to prosecute, but that .se's procedures require investigation before prosecution.
But investigation doesn't require Assanage. Let .se finish their investigation. Once they're done with that *then* we can talk extraditing Assanage.
This is setting a precedent of allowing extradition for the sake of investigation rather than prosecution which is significant since the UK has a common law system where precedent matters. This precedent will be used.
The government already has, and has long had the power to sieze vehicles in an emergency. To compell HAM operators to work with them or to shut down. To take over food supplies/transport.
I'm calling bullsh ... er ... "citation needed" on that.
The Flu and the Common Cold are both viruses that mutate often, right? Would the same idea work for the common cold?
Please excuse my ignorance if there is an obvious reason why this wouldn't work. My degrees are in computers not medicine.
I agree. After a "Page down" I now have to scroll back up to read the three lines being covered by the header bar. This isn't just a cosmetic thing. It is a genuine hindrance to usability.
Did we read the same article? Because I don't see where it says that.
A full answer to that delves into a lot of literary analysis. But basically it amounts to trying to understand the intent of the author. For example, even the most reputable, reliable newspapers include factual information right next to allegorical metaphors. For example they might say "The Tigers slaughtered(metaphor) the Hoosiers (colloquial name) in a 37-2(fact) landslide(metaphor)". A completely literal reading would make you think some kind of large cats had committed mass murder using dirt. On the other hand it isn't proper to dismiss the whole sentence as simply a moral allegory about victory and loss but not describing actual events. A correct reading of the text requires understanding it within the appropriate literary and cultural contexts and yields an interpretation that the sentence is about a true historical event but uses metaphoric and colloquial language.
This isn't to say it is always easy to do this with the Bible. Much time has transpired making it sometimes difficult to understand the appropriate literary and cultural context (e.g. unless you already knew from other sources written in the same time and culture, you'd never notice that "foot" is often a euphemism). Many parts are still debated even among those who study this stuff full time. (These debates are not limited to religious circles; academics in ancient literature also get involved.)
It's impossible for me to give a complete description of every subtly, but in practical terms, maybe the following rules of thumb will help. Most parts can be read plainly as it is easy to identify historical parts (e.g. Chronicals) versus poetic parts (e.g. Psalms). However, Genesis (at least the parts before Abraham), Revelations and anything involving prophecy should be read as describing true events but through a very thick layer of literary styling. Also the book of Job is debated as to whether it is simply a morality tail or whether the man actually exists. Parts on moral teaching (e.g. the sermon on the mount, the book of Romans through the book of Jude) might in one sense be historical (e.g. describing an actual sermon) but interpreting the teachings is often subtle (e.g. John 13, or the passages on turning the other cheek).
Note that even in the parts that generally should be read plainly, you have to be aware of the odd euphemism. For example, I've already mentioned "foot" but others abound (and are often debated). Consider Proverbs 30:20 and the word "eat" or Genesis 24:2 and the word "thigh". Another good one is 1st Samuel 24:3 where the King James Version says "Saul went in to cover his feet". Unfortunately there is no good rule of thumb for spotting these, except perhaps to notice when something just doesn't sound quite right (e.g. why is he covering his feet?) but then you probably still wouldn't spot some euphemisms like the one with "thigh".
I'm not sure how much this helps, but I offer it for what it's worth.
Agreed. But I think it can change for the better. For example, "cop loyalty" has led to many a cover up, but consider if that loyalty were redirected from "I'm loyal to my brothers so I won't let this get out" to "I'm loyal to my brothers so I won't let another cop sully their reputation". A small change, but now instead of cover ups we have self enforcement.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? Maybe not. I have no first hand experience but my understanding is certain parts of the military exhibit this second form of loyalty quite strongly.
Does that video cut off early? I see the officer run back to the car at the end, but I never see the camera move.
How about make laws that target the behavior and not the condition of the person doing the behavior?
You think outlawing the behavior isn't going to be selectively enforced?
Remember "perp = perpetrator != suspect != citizen". It's all right to refer to the "perpetrator of a crime" as a fill in the blank when you don't know who did the crime, but when referring to an actual person, they are at best a suspect. And only if you actually suspect them of committing a crime.
I know "perp" sounds cool, but if used improperly it is prejudicial to justice.
Individually, the stories are weak, but taken together, they show a pattern of behavior.
Two proven events show a pattern of behaviour. All we have now are two people who (IIUC) admit to conferring with each other before making these accusations. Genuinely independent accusations may mutually strengthen the likelihood of their truth as they point to a common cause (e.g. a pattern of behaviour). But with previous collaboration, the accusations are no longer independent. The collaboration is a common cause that overshadows other causes.
Proposed Amendment: Money and services provided by the federal government to the states or the citizens there of shall not be determined in whole or in part based on the policies or laws of said state.
In one fell swoop, this fixes RealID, drinking age, etc. I've thought about this idea for a while, but I have no idea how to get this amendment off the ground. It also probably needs some word-smithing to close loopholes and prevent unintended consequences.
If you base your crypto method on something not vulnerable to to a quantum fourier transform, or if, with your decryption method you absolutely must get the right answer, you can end up back at brute force.
First half: right. Second half: misleading.
If you work the same factorization problem multiple times with a quantum computer, the likelihood that all of those factorizations are wrong decays exponentially with the number of times you work the problem. It is trivial to check which factorization is right using a classical computer.
So yes, quantum cracking will say "Could Not Crack" some percent of the time, but that percentage can easily be made as small as you want just by resubmitting the problem to the quantum computer or running quantum computers in parallel. If it fails 10% of the time, just run it 20 times and it will fail only 10^-20 of the time.
The hard part as you mention is that getting a quantum computer with enough bits is really hard. It's not like adding RAM to classical computers, in a quantum computer each bit is harder to add than the last one. I don't remember how much harder, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was twice as hard. Given that last I checked (5 years ago) we were only up to 4-5 bits, we have a ways to go before we get up to 128 bits.
Cut all federal entitlement programs. Let the states run and fund them.
The rules have no concept of a rider only of an amendment and as far as the rules go of course amendments are permitted if the majority agrees with the amendment. So it isn't really just a congressman's whim. In real life that Simpson's skit would look more like:
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the pervert amendment?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Amendment defeated. All in favor of the Springfield bill?
FLOOR: Yea!
SPEAKER: BIll passed.
If the rider is part of the introduced bill as introduced then the introducing congressman (or committee) can put whatever he wants in the bill. In theory, once it is introduced the majority can then amend the rider out of the bill.
The problem is that riders are often in the interests of the majority or almost majority. They are a good way to garner a few extra votes as well as to pass unpopular legislation. I agree this is a problem since it defeats the purpose of legislative debate but how would you fix it? Every fix I can think of eventually trusts someone to be incorruptible enough to fairly decide what is or isn't a rider and I don't think anyone like that exists in Washington. If you know of a way I'm seriously interested in hearing it.
What is this "vote on article" vs "vote on law as a whole" business? I get the idea (all parts of the law and the law as a whole must pass), but I'm currius what implications that has in practice.
(If it matters, I'm coming from the US model where the parts of a bill are hammered out in committee, then it goes to the full senate/house as a single entity. Amendments may be voted on at that point, but at the end of the day only the bill as a whole needs to pass not the individual parts.)
Nicely written and very moving ... but moving to where? What are we to do about it? At the local and state level, protests and talking to representatives can be quite effective, but at the federal level no so much(*). As an average man with a busy life to live, what specifically am I supposed to do?
(*) Corollary: Restricted federal power and more state power makes it easier for citizens to be involved. See the far to little practiced Principal of Subsidiarity.
Cite me one example of a "well functioning" free market that has existed without externalities, regulation, protectionism, network effects, AND which operates with consumers with perfect knowledge making rational choices
Copper. Wood (modulo non-market related EPA regulation). Most industrial raw resources.
One? Try 59 in a single film. (Ok, some of those are not complete lies, just misleading half-truths.)
Which specialist problem would SHA3b have been for? Any random specialist problem or is there a particularly important specialist problem? The former doesn't sound very useful, but I don't know what the later would be.
That line of argument sounds like it could invert just about any sort of causality.
For example, thesis: water damage causes flooding. Something other than water damage started the flooding, but then the flooding started the water damage and from that point on the water damage caused all the further flooding until again something caused it to stop.
It's all consistent with water damage causing flooding you see in that middle time period.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (Or in this case "Ante hoc ergo propter hoc".)
If the wasp gets energy directly from the Sun, does that mean it is technically a plant? (See Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan on Farscape.)
DC also doesn't have to deal with keeping both ends of the transmission line in phase whereas AC does. This is why transmission lines over the rocky mountains are DC as the east and west US power grids are not phase synced.
Several religious sects take the "no doctor of the law shall enter into the kingdom" literally
Which religion is that from? I don't recognize it and I'm not finding anything on google (I probably just have the wrong keywords).