Your job isn't to implement management policy in technology.
Huh? I must be misreading your comment, because you seem to be 100% wrong on the issue. The job of IT in the larger company is to implement management policy in technology. If not, then what is the Job of IT?
My use of the web and what I do at work is between me and my manager.
Well, now you contradict yourself. If you don't have the necessary access you need to do your job, isn't that an issue between you and IT?
Unless IT is restricting access based on policy from management. But that's not IT's job. So why is this an issue between you and your manager?
It seemed weird that it would be in a senior level math course at a top notch engineering school
Are you saying it would be wierd that the Monty Hall problem was discussed in a senior level math course? I'm not sure why that is. I haven't taken any courses at MIT, but I have discussed Monty Hall in a graduate-level math course at the school up the street from MIT.
Of course, that was a course on probability, so I suppose not talking about Monty Hall would have been wierd.
By symmetry, the expected return on the initial switch MUST be exactly 1.0x, yet the simple math says 1.25x.
Your expected return for switch was never 1.25X. The issue is the mixing of methods. You either look at the magnitude of the expected gain, or the factor relative to your current expectation, but not both. I.E., if switching results in getting the larger check your return increases by a factor of 2. If switching results in getting the smaller check your return increases by a factor of 1/2. But you don't add 2 + 1/2 to get the average.
With equal probability, switching will either change your return by a factor of 2 or 1/2. That is, starting with X, you switch to either 2*X or (1/2)*X. If you start multiplying, you must finish multiplying. The expected gain of the switch is a factor of 2*(1/2) aka 1 aka no advantaged is gained by switching.
If you want to add/subtract the different, with equal probability, switching will either increase your return from X to 2X--a change of X--or decrease your return from 2X to X--a change of -X. The expected gain of the switch is X-X aka 0 aka no advantage is gained by switching.
Certainly seem like a novel way to use a swing to me.
A patent should be non-obvious to one schooled in the art. So the standard is not, does it seem novel to you, but rather, would it seem obvious to an expert in swinging.
How many swinging experts do you think the patent examiner consulted before granting that patent? (And can I get their phone numbers?)
Certainly seem like a novel way to use a swing to me.
Let me guess: you are either a patent examiner for the USPTO, head of Microsoft's dept of innovation, or THREE FARKING YEARS OLD!
When have I seen anybody using a swing in the manner described in the patent? Oh, just about every single time I've seen anybody on a swing. Seriously, it's not novel in any manner.
Does this strike you as novel--I'd like a patent on using a ball point pen to write on card board. No, I didn't invent the ball point pen. But everyone's been using it to write on paper. When have you ever seen someone writing on card board? Never! It must be novel.
The swing patent came from a lawyer showing his kids how the patent system works (with a bonus section on incompetence in government). People like that reproducing make baby Darwin cry.
Math logic doesn't go wrong. You go wrong when you don't use either.
There are two choices, the big check and the small check. There are two possible situations--your first choice is the big check or your first choice is the small check.
If you pick small and switch you get the big check. If you pick big and switch you get the small check.
In either case, if you switch twice, you get your original choice.
At first choice, you have a 50% shot at amount $X and 50% shot at $2X. Your expectation is 50%*X+50%*2X = 1.5*X.
If you switch, you have a 50% shot at $2X and 50% shot at $X. Your expectation is still 1.5*X.
You can continue switching, your expectation never changes. What you can't do, is to double your money by switching once and double your money again by switching again.
Let's look at the expectation of switching. Half the time you gain an addition $X (50%*X); but half the time you lose $X (50%*-1). So your expected gain/loss of switching is 50%*X-50%*X = 0. No change.
I don't know how you got 1.25X as the expected return of switching.
Your switches are not independent events. If by switching from door #1 to door #2 you double your money, the odds of doubling again with another switch are 0%.
You gain no advantage in this case, because you gain no extra knowledge.
The thing most people mess up regarding Monty Hall is, there are rules to which of the remaining doors Monty will offer. You can then make an informed decision based on the knowledge of the rules.
Two guys are out camping. They get ready to bed down, and guy is putting on his sneaker before getting into his sleeping bag. The other guy inquires, what's up with that?
The guy says, in case a bear attacks our camp during the night.
The other guy is skeptical. With sneakers or without, there's no way you can out-run a bear.
The guy replies, I don't need to out-run the bear. I just need to out-run you.
I suspect Google security is pretty much the same way, with a twist. Why try to hack Google, when I can use Google to find credit card numbers, unsecured plain text password files, servers running old, unpatched versions of vulnerable software, etc.
I'd think the hacker going after Google would be as popular as the kid who rats out the teacher who buys the kids beer.
When people talk on cellphones they are LOUDER for some reason. Most people like to yell at their phones.
Cell phones do not give the same feedback as most land line phones.
When you talk into a regular phone, your voice repeats back through your earpiece. This not only provides feedback on the clarity of your voice, it also provides psychological assurance that you can be heard.
When you talk into a cell phone, you voice is not repeated back to you. Since you have a hard time hearing yourself (compared to when talking on a regular phone) you naturally speak louder to compensate.
There is also the issue of the cell phone on the other side. Think about it, and you will probably catch yourself doing it automatically--when the person you are speaking with is using a cell phone, you add a little volume, presuming your audience does not have as clear a connection than they would have using a land line.
The solution is, when speaking, to concentrate on what you are saying and not how you hear your own voice. You can't rely on the feedback from your cell phone to regulate your volume. You have to assume the other person would tell you to speak up if they can't hear you.
And this is one area where blu-ray has an advantage over DVD--a new blu-ray player will play my old DVDs. A DVD player won't play VHS tapes. (I don't remember seeing combo-DVD and tape players until VHS was all but dead already.)
Most of this thread seems focused on the argument for upgrading from DVD to blu-ray vs. not buying a new player--and I agree the 'don't upgrade' side is winning. But not every purchase is an upgrade with an option to purchase nothing.
I recently replaced a combo TiVo/DVD players with an HD TiVo, and so I'm in the market for a disc player. (The old TiVo is finicky about which discs it plays, so it isn't worth to keep just for DVDs.)
Not buying a new player is not an option. So my choices are buy a DVD player, probably an upscaling model in the $80-$100 range, or go with blu-ray, at about $300. If we were still in the midst of blu-ray vs HD-DVD I likely would have gone with an upscaling DVD player, but at this point it doesn't make sense to not get the newer technology.
I instead of spending $300 now, I could spend $100 now on a DVD players and then another $150-$200 on blu-ray when the prices come down, but that just doubles the amount of time I spend wrestling with the rats nest of cable behind my entertainment center.
If the option was go blu-ray or stick with an old DVD player, I'd stick with what I have. But since I am getting a new player either way, it's harder to make the case for DVD.
So many stories have "the company did this" or "the company denied that." Aren't these companies made up of people?
I can imagine an effort by management to cut corners and maximize profits at the expense of quality and company reputation, but is there really no one in a position of first hand knowledge who knows better?
With the multitudes of avenues for anonymous communications, it's not like I'm asking someone to put their job on the line. (Not that it would be too much to ask. There are people out there risking their lives in a very real way to protect this country. You won't even risk a job you most likely hate anyway?)
In 2006, the Census Bureau awarded a $595 million contract to Harris Corp. to develop more than 525,000 handheld computers that enumerators would use to collect data from Americans who did not send in their census forms.
No wonder the project failed. Why not have them develop 1 handheld computer, and produce 525,000 units for enumerators to use?
So this is hell...the government and society from Idiocracy, without the handjobs. Sartre was right.
There's your interview. That's the one question I'd like answered.
Jon Stewart's rant on Crossfire has already been mentioned, but I'll add, there's no issue inherent in the Crossfire format. The issue is, just having both sides of an issue represented does not mean you are unbiased. If one side is lying, it's not ok just because you have someone from the other side to counter with their own lies.
In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks (well, except that he's dead): "Hey, waitaminute! It's one guy holding up both puppets!"
Oh my lack of god yes! Funny thing is, I just finished replying to a post accusing me of being a "rabid ultra-left Democrat" with:
You've been had. Just like racism is a way to get poor white folks fighting poor brown folk so they don't realize most of their problems have nothing to do with color. The policies that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor paying the bill transcend the Democratic/Republican divide.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
Wow. I must have really misspoken if I left the impression I was an ultra-left Democrat. That is not my position at all. (The jury is still out on the rabid part.)
But let's take a closer look at the generalities of my post. It would be fair to say I was overly broad in my statements, but I don't see where you would get troll.
"'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" Yeah, that doesn't really do it. Should be "'let's pry into everyone's business without any oversight' Republicans". The current Republicans in charge insist on the ability to tap everyone's phone lines and read everyone's email without having to get the OK from a judge or face any oversight. How is that a troll? It's just a fact.
"'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats" That one is open to interpretation, based on what you think is a 'fair share' but again, not really a troll. There really are Democrats who take the position, the rich should pay their fair share. (And again that's double broad based on who you think qualifies as 'rich'.)
"'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" Again, I don't see the troll here--such a thing does not exist. There are people who believe in financial transparency, but those people aren't Republicans. Based on the folks in charge and the people who vote for them, Republicans believe in no-bid contracts and policy decisions by secret meetings. (Smoke-filled rooms optional.)
"'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats" I would say my language in this case was imprecise, but not so far as to be a troll. There are Democrats with that stand, but there are many Republicans with the same stand. That is, the feeling 'nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' is not a defining characteristic of Democrats but rather shared by members of both major parties.
Now let's look at your statements.
"Sucker the poor into paying for everything" Democrats I'd put that in the category of not a characteristic of Democrats, but rather something both parties share.
If you don't believe they exist, take a look at the rich and famous Democrat supporters, especially those in the entertainment industry and in politics. Now who's being the troll? If you look closer, you'll find most rich Democrats support a progressive tax that has them paying as much as they would have rich Republicans paying.
"We shouldn't punish people for being successful" Republicans Now that one I agree with. If only we had more "we shouldn't punish people for not being successful" Republicans. The amount of success a person has is punishment/reward in itself. The government should stay out of the way.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
You've been had--just like racism is a way to get poor white folks fighting poor brown folk so they don't realize most of their problems have nothing to do with color. The policies that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor paying the bill transcend the Democratic/Republican divide.
Even if I was the most ultra-left, politically-correct, drug-legalizing, Michael Moore-loving, pinko commie Democrat that ever was, I'm not the one giving away billions of your dollars and destroying the real purchasing power of the pieces of paper in your pocket you believe is money.
He talks about the "'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" versus the "'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats. Why not the "'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" versus the " 'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats"?
Troll or not, at least "'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" and "'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats actually exist.
"'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" and "'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats" are both about as real as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Either their activities are not very clandestine or they are really, really good at hiding them
Exactly. What is best place to hide something? In the exact place where everyone expects that something to be.
Someone spots a satellite that's not on any official lists and no markings of ownership or purpose? OMG CEILING CAT IS WATCHING ME TRAIN MY PARAMILITARY REVOLUTIONARIEZ!!!11ONE
Someone spots a satellite with a big NOAA sticker on the side? Oh, that's just the Hurricane Tracker 3000.
Sort of like how a dead body buried in your backyard might attract some attention. A dead body buried in a cemetery, not so much.
While I acknowledge others' pervious predictions of rough sailing ahead for Apple have generally not come to reality (since the return of Jobs), your tale leads me in the opposite direction.
It reminds of the story of Joe Kennedy knowing it was time to get out of the stock market when he was getting stock tips from the shoe shine boy. Part of Apple's appeal was its status as an outsider. Random people can't become cool for owning a Mac; the point of being cool is you're not just another random person.
With apologies to Yogi, are we reaching a point where no one will buy an Apple because everyone's buying Apple?
Slashdot Mirror
Your job isn't to implement management policy in technology.
Huh? I must be misreading your comment, because you seem to be 100% wrong on the issue. The job of IT in the larger company is to implement management policy in technology. If not, then what is the Job of IT?
My use of the web and what I do at work is between me and my manager.
Well, now you contradict yourself. If you don't have the necessary access you need to do your job, isn't that an issue between you and IT?
Unless IT is restricting access based on policy from management. But that's not IT's job. So why is this an issue between you and your manager?
It seemed weird that it would be in a senior level math course at a top notch engineering school
Are you saying it would be wierd that the Monty Hall problem was discussed in a senior level math course? I'm not sure why that is. I haven't taken any courses at MIT, but I have discussed Monty Hall in a graduate-level math course at the school up the street from MIT.
Of course, that was a course on probability, so I suppose not talking about Monty Hall would have been wierd.
By symmetry, the expected return on the initial switch MUST be exactly 1.0x, yet the simple math says 1.25x.
Your expected return for switch was never 1.25X. The issue is the mixing of methods. You either look at the magnitude of the expected gain, or the factor relative to your current expectation, but not both. I.E., if switching results in getting the larger check your return increases by a factor of 2. If switching results in getting the smaller check your return increases by a factor of 1/2. But you don't add 2 + 1/2 to get the average.
With equal probability, switching will either change your return by a factor of 2 or 1/2. That is, starting with X, you switch to either 2*X or (1/2)*X. If you start multiplying, you must finish multiplying. The expected gain of the switch is a factor of 2*(1/2) aka 1 aka no advantaged is gained by switching.
If you want to add/subtract the different, with equal probability, switching will either increase your return from X to 2X--a change of X--or decrease your return from 2X to X--a change of -X. The expected gain of the switch is X-X aka 0 aka no advantage is gained by switching.
Don't be silly. You can get human brains anywhere.
I was going to make a comment about human brains being scarce, but then I realized quite the opposite.
Not only are human brains plentiful, but most will be in new, un-used condition.
Certainly seem like a novel way to use a swing to me.
A patent should be non-obvious to one schooled in the art. So the standard is not, does it seem novel to you, but rather, would it seem obvious to an expert in swinging.
How many swinging experts do you think the patent examiner consulted before granting that patent? (And can I get their phone numbers?)
Certainly seem like a novel way to use a swing to me.
Let me guess: you are either a patent examiner for the USPTO, head of Microsoft's dept of innovation, or THREE FARKING YEARS OLD!
When have I seen anybody using a swing in the manner described in the patent? Oh, just about every single time I've seen anybody on a swing. Seriously, it's not novel in any manner.
Does this strike you as novel--I'd like a patent on using a ball point pen to write on card board. No, I didn't invent the ball point pen. But everyone's been using it to write on paper. When have you ever seen someone writing on card board? Never! It must be novel.
The swing patent came from a lawyer showing his kids how the patent system works (with a bonus section on incompetence in government). People like that reproducing make baby Darwin cry.
Math logic doesn't go wrong. You go wrong when you don't use either.
There are two choices, the big check and the small check. There are two possible situations--your first choice is the big check or your first choice is the small check.
If you pick small and switch you get the big check. If you pick big and switch you get the small check.
In either case, if you switch twice, you get your original choice.
At first choice, you have a 50% shot at amount $X and 50% shot at $2X. Your expectation is 50%*X+50%*2X = 1.5*X.
If you switch, you have a 50% shot at $2X and 50% shot at $X. Your expectation is still 1.5*X.
You can continue switching, your expectation never changes. What you can't do, is to double your money by switching once and double your money again by switching again.
Let's look at the expectation of switching. Half the time you gain an addition $X (50%*X); but half the time you lose $X (50%*-1). So your expected gain/loss of switching is 50%*X-50%*X = 0. No change.
I don't know how you got 1.25X as the expected return of switching.
Your switches are not independent events. If by switching from door #1 to door #2 you double your money, the odds of doubling again with another switch are 0%.
You gain no advantage in this case, because you gain no extra knowledge.
The thing most people mess up regarding Monty Hall is, there are rules to which of the remaining doors Monty will offer. You can then make an informed decision based on the knowledge of the rules.
Two guys are out camping. They get ready to bed down, and guy is putting on his sneaker before getting into his sleeping bag. The other guy inquires, what's up with that?
The guy says, in case a bear attacks our camp during the night.
The other guy is skeptical. With sneakers or without, there's no way you can out-run a bear.
The guy replies, I don't need to out-run the bear. I just need to out-run you.
I suspect Google security is pretty much the same way, with a twist. Why try to hack Google, when I can use Google to find credit card numbers, unsecured plain text password files, servers running old, unpatched versions of vulnerable software, etc.
I'd think the hacker going after Google would be as popular as the kid who rats out the teacher who buys the kids beer.
When people talk on cellphones they are LOUDER for some reason. Most people like to yell at their phones.
Cell phones do not give the same feedback as most land line phones.
When you talk into a regular phone, your voice repeats back through your earpiece. This not only provides feedback on the clarity of your voice, it also provides psychological assurance that you can be heard.
When you talk into a cell phone, you voice is not repeated back to you. Since you have a hard time hearing yourself (compared to when talking on a regular phone) you naturally speak louder to compensate.
There is also the issue of the cell phone on the other side. Think about it, and you will probably catch yourself doing it automatically--when the person you are speaking with is using a cell phone, you add a little volume, presuming your audience does not have as clear a connection than they would have using a land line.
The solution is, when speaking, to concentrate on what you are saying and not how you hear your own voice. You can't rely on the feedback from your cell phone to regulate your volume. You have to assume the other person would tell you to speak up if they can't hear you.
And this is one area where blu-ray has an advantage over DVD--a new blu-ray player will play my old DVDs. A DVD player won't play VHS tapes. (I don't remember seeing combo-DVD and tape players until VHS was all but dead already.)
Most of this thread seems focused on the argument for upgrading from DVD to blu-ray vs. not buying a new player--and I agree the 'don't upgrade' side is winning. But not every purchase is an upgrade with an option to purchase nothing.
I recently replaced a combo TiVo/DVD players with an HD TiVo, and so I'm in the market for a disc player. (The old TiVo is finicky about which discs it plays, so it isn't worth to keep just for DVDs.)
Not buying a new player is not an option. So my choices are buy a DVD player, probably an upscaling model in the $80-$100 range, or go with blu-ray, at about $300. If we were still in the midst of blu-ray vs HD-DVD I likely would have gone with an upscaling DVD player, but at this point it doesn't make sense to not get the newer technology.
I instead of spending $300 now, I could spend $100 now on a DVD players and then another $150-$200 on blu-ray when the prices come down, but that just doubles the amount of time I spend wrestling with the rats nest of cable behind my entertainment center.
If the option was go blu-ray or stick with an old DVD player, I'd stick with what I have. But since I am getting a new player either way, it's harder to make the case for DVD.
So many stories have "the company did this" or "the company denied that." Aren't these companies made up of people?
I can imagine an effort by management to cut corners and maximize profits at the expense of quality and company reputation, but is there really no one in a position of first hand knowledge who knows better?
With the multitudes of avenues for anonymous communications, it's not like I'm asking someone to put their job on the line. (Not that it would be too much to ask. There are people out there risking their lives in a very real way to protect this country. You won't even risk a job you most likely hate anyway?)
However, Dogs + Gun would be even safer, again, assuming a certain minimum level of training.
Safest would be dogs + bees assuming you train the dogs to shoot bees when they bark.
What are the odds of that? ;)
IOW, it is just an enthusiasts upgrade.
P.S. Is it just my browser, or is /. extra crappy today? Why are entire threads blockquoted?
No wonder the project failed. Why not have them develop 1 handheld computer, and produce 525,000 units for enumerators to use?
So this is hell...the government and society from Idiocracy, without the handjobs. Sartre was right.
There's your interview. That's the one question I'd like answered.
Jon Stewart's rant on Crossfire has already been mentioned, but I'll add, there's no issue inherent in the Crossfire format. The issue is, just having both sides of an issue represented does not mean you are unbiased. If one side is lying, it's not ok just because you have someone from the other side to counter with their own lies.
Oh my lack of god yes! Funny thing is, I just finished replying to a post accusing me of being a "rabid ultra-left Democrat" with:
You've been had. Just like racism is a way to get poor white folks fighting poor brown folk so they don't realize most of their problems have nothing to do with color. The policies that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor paying the bill transcend the Democratic/Republican divide.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
Wow. I must have really misspoken if I left the impression I was an ultra-left Democrat. That is not my position at all. (The jury is still out on the rabid part.)
But let's take a closer look at the generalities of my post. It would be fair to say I was overly broad in my statements, but I don't see where you would get troll.
"'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" Yeah, that doesn't really do it. Should be "'let's pry into everyone's business without any oversight' Republicans". The current Republicans in charge insist on the ability to tap everyone's phone lines and read everyone's email without having to get the OK from a judge or face any oversight. How is that a troll? It's just a fact.
"'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats" That one is open to interpretation, based on what you think is a 'fair share' but again, not really a troll. There really are Democrats who take the position, the rich should pay their fair share. (And again that's double broad based on who you think qualifies as 'rich'.)
"'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" Again, I don't see the troll here--such a thing does not exist. There are people who believe in financial transparency, but those people aren't Republicans. Based on the folks in charge and the people who vote for them, Republicans believe in no-bid contracts and policy decisions by secret meetings. (Smoke-filled rooms optional.)
"'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats" I would say my language in this case was imprecise, but not so far as to be a troll. There are Democrats with that stand, but there are many Republicans with the same stand. That is, the feeling 'nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' is not a defining characteristic of Democrats but rather shared by members of both major parties.
Now let's look at your statements.
"Sucker the poor into paying for everything" Democrats I'd put that in the category of not a characteristic of Democrats, but rather something both parties share.
If you don't believe they exist, take a look at the rich and famous Democrat supporters, especially those in the entertainment industry and in politics. Now who's being the troll? If you look closer, you'll find most rich Democrats support a progressive tax that has them paying as much as they would have rich Republicans paying.
"We shouldn't punish people for being successful" Republicans Now that one I agree with. If only we had more "we shouldn't punish people for not being successful" Republicans. The amount of success a person has is punishment/reward in itself. The government should stay out of the way.
You've been had--just like racism is a way to get poor white folks fighting poor brown folk so they don't realize most of their problems have nothing to do with color. The policies that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor paying the bill transcend the Democratic/Republican divide.
Even if I was the most ultra-left, politically-correct, drug-legalizing, Michael Moore-loving, pinko commie Democrat that ever was, I'm not the one giving away billions of your dollars and destroying the real purchasing power of the pieces of paper in your pocket you believe is money.
Every year you get older, they stay the same age.
He talks about the "'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" versus the "'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats. Why not the "'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" versus the " 'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats"?
Troll or not, at least "'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" and "'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats actually exist.
"'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" and "'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats" are both about as real as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Either their activities are not very clandestine or they are really, really good at hiding them
Exactly. What is best place to hide something? In the exact place where everyone expects that something to be.
Someone spots a satellite that's not on any official lists and no markings of ownership or purpose? OMG CEILING CAT IS WATCHING ME TRAIN MY PARAMILITARY REVOLUTIONARIEZ!!!11ONE
Someone spots a satellite with a big NOAA sticker on the side? Oh, that's just the Hurricane Tracker 3000.
Sort of like how a dead body buried in your backyard might attract some attention. A dead body buried in a cemetery, not so much.
Do you even know what baseball is?
(Heads off to buy more Apple stock).
While I acknowledge others' pervious predictions of rough sailing ahead for Apple have generally not come to reality (since the return of Jobs), your tale leads me in the opposite direction.
It reminds of the story of Joe Kennedy knowing it was time to get out of the stock market when he was getting stock tips from the shoe shine boy. Part of Apple's appeal was its status as an outsider. Random people can't become cool for owning a Mac; the point of being cool is you're not just another random person.
With apologies to Yogi, are we reaching a point where no one will buy an Apple because everyone's buying Apple?