Who are you who is so wise in the way of maths? That's a great description and you should publish it somewhere more meaningful than/. - maybe the maths StackExchange site.
For the moderators - that's a pretty good description. Albeit not as detailed as it could be but it needn't be so it seems like it suits the purpose fine. That's one of the best descriptions of nondeterministic polynominal time problems that I've seen. People have issues with the P vs NP. Truth be told, it's not that easy to grasp at first.
Bleh, I'm tired but the above poster did a pretty good job methinks. I'm seeing nary a problem with it. It could probably be fluffed out but should suffice. Good work, I say.
Anyhow, I'm checking out the paper. Well, I will be after snuggle-time. Yay! A use-case for a tablet. I've a bit of work in this area though, specifically, modeling traffic - traffic optimization *is* hard. Throughput, where humans are concerned, is nearing an attempt at modeling chaos (and for those who think perfection is possible, I welcome their insights).
I've yet to read it but I suspect it's not a huge advance so much as it is working on prior modal work. (Not all work gets published, for better or worse, and some remains a trade-secret.) My guess is that (and this is just from a quick look, absolutely not to be taken as an authoritative statement) this is just further optimization, refinement, and it appears like it may be a good step forward.
I'm not sure that I agree with the phone analogy but, well, okay... We're not children.
It looks like, if you've got highway traffic going to A, B, and C and you have exit/merge nodes 1, 2, and 3 then you can take the current values and include the street traffic - as well as time of day data, up to and including the myriad traffic uses, that you can then more accurately predict if new merge 1.5 will increase traffic for traffic going from A to B while decreasing overall traffic (of increasing it) from B to C and if it will actually reduce surface street traffic. It also looks like you can use this to predict if an exit at 1.5 will decrease overall time for, example, delivery vehicles that need to reach surface streets or if they're better shoveled off to a new exit at 2.5 or left to exit on 3. You can also deduce predictions (never certainties) for throughput from A to C, A to B, and which exits or mergers are more likely to congest or reduce traffic on the highway as well as optimize for certain functions such as the aforementioned delivery trucks.
Basically, in programmer terms, the more subroutines you can have the more accurately you can refine your answers and the better the results *can* be. Of course this adds complexity and computational difficulty. This algorithm optimizes existing work by allowing you to use more subroutines more efficiently - perhaps think of it like calling a library or OOP (I guess?). As you were a teacher, it's akin to being able to (more easily) tailor an individualized lesson plan for each student who may, or may not, excel and then, at the end, they'd all be able to pass their test which may, or may not, be also tailored for them. Basically, you'd be able to blab a whole bunch of data at them and they'd then get the appropriate information, tailored to their needs, and may output the correct answers on the test.
This doesn't do anything (from what I see so far) to actually ensure you're inserting good data (of course). I am obviously stretching the analogies quite a bit but math is hard. Well, no... It's not hard so much but, rather, it is that most people learned via rote and not conceptually. Some idiot decided to make word problems, not a bad idea. Some idiot came along after them and told them to take the word problems apart and to ignore the words. Nobody actually showed them the concepts of the maths themselves and why the answers are the way they are. I could type a novella on the subject... Complete with examples! Nobody would listen/read it and I don't blame them.
In short, this is "just" improving on existing models and appears to be doing so by making various inputs more accessible or, more accurately, more streamlined. Again, a very cursory scan was done and I could be way off. Another quick look makes me think I'm correct. I really need to read it to be certain.
'Snot hard. *nods* Looks like good work from a quick glimpse. It'd be a shame to see it wasted on optimizing phones.;-) Another quick peek does, indeed, note that they're claiming improvements on current models. Note: This was written in a few sporadic posts and the paragraphs are probably horrifically out of order. If they don't make sense then swap 'em around a bit until they
I've read a few people who claim to be cops, on various forums, cite that and claim that they (and others on the force) are even going to far as to buy their own body cameras just for reasons such as that. The ones who are complaining are, I suspect, those whom are more likely to be doing something wrong and those that need monitoring.
Sure, sure... Nothing to hide and all that but that stops, in my mind, when they put on the badge and go on duty. Just as an employer has the right to monitor an employee, in some situations, so DO we have the right to monitor police officers. I suspect that there are still areas where recording the police is prohibited due to various laws but I am not positive.
Anyhow, there are some number (I don't know how high nor am I qualified to speculate on the percentage) of officers who see this as a benefit. Hopefully, this percentage increases. They really do need to return to the time (real or imagined) where police were, for the most part, fine and upstanding citizens. Heh... I suspect that's never been the case but we'll pretend it's true for this conversation.
Yip. Someone's run off with the content. Probably Willie on Wheels. (I miss his antics. Wikipedia used to be fun before they figured out security. Now it's just a bunch of mundanes with a chip on their shoulder.)
You know, I do like you - I even think you're right with the hosts file use (you should compile a version for Linux, it needn't be GPLed or anything and you can keep the source - just release binaries). But, you know...
I really don't want you editing Wikipedia if your edits are anything like your Slashdot posts and your style confrontational. I'd smack your hand and tell you 'no' too. Bad APK - stay away from Wikipedia! Not yours!
Well, I suspect the Appellate Court will say, "Pound sand."
It will probably be couched as something like, "The plaintiffs in this case have failed to demonstrate standing." The case will be dismissed with prejudice. A booming voice for the heavens will play, and it will be licensed from Microsoft - "tada.wav."
You say that, but would you really? I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun but I've yet to face that so I can only hope I'd not chicken out and piss myself if it happens. In fact, I was in a single firefight while enlisted and I was scared shitless (suppressive fire only). I was all gung-ho about it before hand. When the situation happened, I'd have run the fuck away had it not been for the fact that the job needed doing and my brethren's lives were at stake. (If you think the enlisted fight for you, you are mistaken. But, I digress.)
So, would you? I know you think you would. I know you can claim you would. I know I say the same. But, would I? I'd like to think I would. Hell, I've got a few bucks - I can fight the case. But, would I? I dunno, really. I'd like to think so, but maybe not. I've also got a lot to lose and, to be honest, I don't really like you that much. (Not you personally, but you get the idea.)
;-) If you ignore the vocal minority, you'd be surprised how close Libertarians are to Socialists. Our reasoning is *very* different but the end result is very similar. Also, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model. All of the people who are actually in the party (not claiming to represent it) that I, personally, know are rather sane and much further to the left than people think. We're usually further left than the Democrats are - I dare say that I'm further left than any elected democrat.
Unfortunately, the time has come when I need to refer to myself as a "Classic Libertarian." *sighs* Ayn Rand was an idiot. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Any political ideology will not work when it's on a large enough scale to involve disparate peoples. Unless you want a totalitarian solution, you can not do it. It simply, none of them, will work...
Where that ties in with your comment, well, I'll let you decide. However, that's what your comment made me think of. I'm a bit tired so, suffice to say, that I want things like a strong social safety net because I like owning my stuff. I want a very strong central government (and states) who enforce the laws without bias - but with judgment. Why? Well, it's cheaper for me to feed you than it is for me to feed you and have to fix the hole you cut in my screens to break in and steal my food. It expands from that same idea. I don't mind taxes. I mind how they're spent. I don't mind government. I mind it being everywhere.
Alas, I'm tired and this is only tangentially related. I don't have the answers. I wish I did. I'm running for the State Senate (in Maine) but I don't think that will have any impact on your life. I don't really want the job but I'm in a position to do it. The current representative was running unopposed and hasn't done a damned thing the electorate wants. My ideals will, much of the time, not be important as my JOB will be to represent my constituents according to their wishes. I really don't want the job. I have more amusing things to do with my retirement.
This is mostly true now, to be honest. When they first started it was quite frequently in the news about how the officers didn't like them. I think they changed, to some extent (you still see some complaining about them on sites like Reddit or Voat for example - I'm sure others), when they realized it also got rid of some of the bullshit complaints about abuses that simply didn't happen. I suspect it's the same ones that complained then that complain now. I don't see it as hypocrisy, I see them as wrong but not hypocritical.
Hmm... Have you ever worked somewhere that has a real security detail? They're not going to be happy if they're not alerted first. The EMTs are going to be even more pissed. Additionally, 911 calls usually ask that you remain on the line. Call security, administer first aid, wait for security to arrive. (EMTs or HAZMAT will arrive later. Security will have someone on-scene in a jiffy.)
As all of our code was internal, I might have giggled a little if it was done on the dev end (not in production) and on the 1st of April. We were pretty lax during that one day of the year. It hampered productivity but, in return, we got people with honed skills and insights. So, there's that. I don't think they ever used this but they did use others. Before I turned my code over and stopped working on it myself I had an "I'm drunk" menu nested in and unfinished. Fortunately, I hired professionals. They had to re-write a huge bunch of it because, "Comments go in the code, not on a coffee soaked index card, asshole."
I am not a good programmer. It works. It's not my major. Man, I suck. I should write a CMS in Perl as my opus and gift it to the world. I'm gonna put that on my bucket list.
That's never how I've seen it done anywhere - up to, and including, when working in a detention facility while enlisted. The policy has always been, call security and security deals with the EMTs. The added seconds will save minutes of confusion.
No, you call security - while you're on the phone with them, they'll call the EMTs or other applicable hazard workers. The added few seconds is worth it for the coordinated response that is better left to the trained security staff.
They've always wanted to not be recorded. Hell, were I a thug in a blue uniform, I'd want the same thing (I imagine). There's no hypocrisy here - they're just still wanting to hide their misdeeds.
They're all commercial - you pay for them when you pay for the OS. I'm not sure if Chrome fits but it seems to - you buy the ChromeOS and you get Chrome with it. That makes them commercial.
As I recall it was someone coming from an ex-communist country that said it. At least that's how I interpreted it. I think it was, indeed, partially humor but humor often contains a nugget of truth and insight.
Absolutely, but I don't see any hypocrisy which is what I was responding to. The cops didn't, usually, want the videos in the first place. They still don't. I'm not sure what you're responding to.
That doesn't make sense. Relaxed drug laws don't mean people do more drugs - they mean that people don't go to jail for doing the drugs they are doing. In fact, you'd expect more crime where the tougher drug laws are as people are going to drugs regardless. If people couldn't get drugs we'd not have a "drug problem." It's not like lax drug laws means people will suddenly decide to go do heroin. If they want drugs they can already get them.
So, no, the crime rate will not correlate with lax drug laws. And the GPP was a moron but we knew that. Weed doesn't usually make you go out and commit additional crimes in and of itself.
This is not an opinion on cops being filmed nor a statement supporting or refuting it. However, the cops wear body cameras and have dash cameras because we told that that's what we wanted. I don't see that as hypocrisy, really.
If asked, then yes, I think cops should have to accept that they're *also* being filmed by the public.
No, I don't really care. Yes, there are a lot of Asian people there - I stopped by the campus, about two months ago, and the stereotypes are true. It's full of Asians. I look Asian to most people so I guess I'd fit in now.
For example, open source firefox has ensured no commercial browser will exist for a long time, if ever. That's because a commercial product can't easily compete with a product priced at $0. So you're stuck with the slow, buggy firefox for a long time, because no one will bother developing an alternative.
Edge, Safari, and Internet Explorer all still exist as commercial browsers. There are probably others, one might include Chrome in the list, but that's enough to make me scratch my head at your statement. I can't actually speak on the usability of any of them, nor for Firefox really, as I use Opera which is based on Chromium.
Slashdot Mirror
Who are you who is so wise in the way of maths? That's a great description and you should publish it somewhere more meaningful than /. - maybe the maths StackExchange site.
For the moderators - that's a pretty good description. Albeit not as detailed as it could be but it needn't be so it seems like it suits the purpose fine. That's one of the best descriptions of nondeterministic polynominal time problems that I've seen. People have issues with the P vs NP. Truth be told, it's not that easy to grasp at first.
Bleh, I'm tired but the above poster did a pretty good job methinks. I'm seeing nary a problem with it. It could probably be fluffed out but should suffice. Good work, I say.
Why, I oughtta!
Anyhow, I'm checking out the paper. Well, I will be after snuggle-time. Yay! A use-case for a tablet. I've a bit of work in this area though, specifically, modeling traffic - traffic optimization *is* hard. Throughput, where humans are concerned, is nearing an attempt at modeling chaos (and for those who think perfection is possible, I welcome their insights).
I've yet to read it but I suspect it's not a huge advance so much as it is working on prior modal work. (Not all work gets published, for better or worse, and some remains a trade-secret.) My guess is that (and this is just from a quick look, absolutely not to be taken as an authoritative statement) this is just further optimization, refinement, and it appears like it may be a good step forward.
I'm not sure that I agree with the phone analogy but, well, okay... We're not children.
It looks like, if you've got highway traffic going to A, B, and C and you have exit/merge nodes 1, 2, and 3 then you can take the current values and include the street traffic - as well as time of day data, up to and including the myriad traffic uses, that you can then more accurately predict if new merge 1.5 will increase traffic for traffic going from A to B while decreasing overall traffic (of increasing it) from B to C and if it will actually reduce surface street traffic. It also looks like you can use this to predict if an exit at 1.5 will decrease overall time for, example, delivery vehicles that need to reach surface streets or if they're better shoveled off to a new exit at 2.5 or left to exit on 3. You can also deduce predictions (never certainties) for throughput from A to C, A to B, and which exits or mergers are more likely to congest or reduce traffic on the highway as well as optimize for certain functions such as the aforementioned delivery trucks.
Basically, in programmer terms, the more subroutines you can have the more accurately you can refine your answers and the better the results *can* be. Of course this adds complexity and computational difficulty. This algorithm optimizes existing work by allowing you to use more subroutines more efficiently - perhaps think of it like calling a library or OOP (I guess?). As you were a teacher, it's akin to being able to (more easily) tailor an individualized lesson plan for each student who may, or may not, excel and then, at the end, they'd all be able to pass their test which may, or may not, be also tailored for them. Basically, you'd be able to blab a whole bunch of data at them and they'd then get the appropriate information, tailored to their needs, and may output the correct answers on the test.
This doesn't do anything (from what I see so far) to actually ensure you're inserting good data (of course). I am obviously stretching the analogies quite a bit but math is hard. Well, no... It's not hard so much but, rather, it is that most people learned via rote and not conceptually. Some idiot decided to make word problems, not a bad idea. Some idiot came along after them and told them to take the word problems apart and to ignore the words. Nobody actually showed them the concepts of the maths themselves and why the answers are the way they are. I could type a novella on the subject... Complete with examples! Nobody would listen/read it and I don't blame them.
In short, this is "just" improving on existing models and appears to be doing so by making various inputs more accessible or, more accurately, more streamlined. Again, a very cursory scan was done and I could be way off. Another quick look makes me think I'm correct. I really need to read it to be certain.
'Snot hard. *nods* Looks like good work from a quick glimpse. It'd be a shame to see it wasted on optimizing phones. ;-) Another quick peek does, indeed, note that they're claiming improvements on current models. Note: This was written in a few sporadic posts and the paragraphs are probably horrifically out of order. If they don't make sense then swap 'em around a bit until they
I've read a few people who claim to be cops, on various forums, cite that and claim that they (and others on the force) are even going to far as to buy their own body cameras just for reasons such as that. The ones who are complaining are, I suspect, those whom are more likely to be doing something wrong and those that need monitoring.
Sure, sure... Nothing to hide and all that but that stops, in my mind, when they put on the badge and go on duty. Just as an employer has the right to monitor an employee, in some situations, so DO we have the right to monitor police officers. I suspect that there are still areas where recording the police is prohibited due to various laws but I am not positive.
Anyhow, there are some number (I don't know how high nor am I qualified to speculate on the percentage) of officers who see this as a benefit. Hopefully, this percentage increases. They really do need to return to the time (real or imagined) where police were, for the most part, fine and upstanding citizens. Heh... I suspect that's never been the case but we'll pretend it's true for this conversation.
Yip. Someone's run off with the content. Probably Willie on Wheels. (I miss his antics. Wikipedia used to be fun before they figured out security. Now it's just a bunch of mundanes with a chip on their shoulder.)
...
You know, I do like you - I even think you're right with the hosts file use (you should compile a version for Linux, it needn't be GPLed or anything and you can keep the source - just release binaries). But, you know...
I really don't want you editing Wikipedia if your edits are anything like your Slashdot posts and your style confrontational. I'd smack your hand and tell you 'no' too. Bad APK - stay away from Wikipedia! Not yours!
Well, I suspect the Appellate Court will say, "Pound sand."
It will probably be couched as something like, "The plaintiffs in this case have failed to demonstrate standing." The case will be dismissed with prejudice. A booming voice for the heavens will play, and it will be licensed from Microsoft - "tada.wav."
You say that, but would you really? I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun but I've yet to face that so I can only hope I'd not chicken out and piss myself if it happens. In fact, I was in a single firefight while enlisted and I was scared shitless (suppressive fire only). I was all gung-ho about it before hand. When the situation happened, I'd have run the fuck away had it not been for the fact that the job needed doing and my brethren's lives were at stake. (If you think the enlisted fight for you, you are mistaken. But, I digress.)
So, would you? I know you think you would. I know you can claim you would. I know I say the same. But, would I? I'd like to think I would. Hell, I've got a few bucks - I can fight the case. But, would I? I dunno, really. I'd like to think so, but maybe not. I've also got a lot to lose and, to be honest, I don't really like you that much. (Not you personally, but you get the idea.)
What you did there, I see it.
And I am greatly amused. You have shares in an aluminum mine, perhaps?
I don't think the NSA can just hand a judge a NSL. I suspect they went with the monkey wrench approach or the black mail approach.
;-) If you ignore the vocal minority, you'd be surprised how close Libertarians are to Socialists. Our reasoning is *very* different but the end result is very similar. Also, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model. All of the people who are actually in the party (not claiming to represent it) that I, personally, know are rather sane and much further to the left than people think. We're usually further left than the Democrats are - I dare say that I'm further left than any elected democrat.
Unfortunately, the time has come when I need to refer to myself as a "Classic Libertarian." *sighs* Ayn Rand was an idiot. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Any political ideology will not work when it's on a large enough scale to involve disparate peoples. Unless you want a totalitarian solution, you can not do it. It simply, none of them, will work...
Where that ties in with your comment, well, I'll let you decide. However, that's what your comment made me think of. I'm a bit tired so, suffice to say, that I want things like a strong social safety net because I like owning my stuff. I want a very strong central government (and states) who enforce the laws without bias - but with judgment. Why? Well, it's cheaper for me to feed you than it is for me to feed you and have to fix the hole you cut in my screens to break in and steal my food. It expands from that same idea. I don't mind taxes. I mind how they're spent. I don't mind government. I mind it being everywhere.
Alas, I'm tired and this is only tangentially related. I don't have the answers. I wish I did. I'm running for the State Senate (in Maine) but I don't think that will have any impact on your life. I don't really want the job but I'm in a position to do it. The current representative was running unopposed and hasn't done a damned thing the electorate wants. My ideals will, much of the time, not be important as my JOB will be to represent my constituents according to their wishes. I really don't want the job. I have more amusing things to do with my retirement.
This is mostly true now, to be honest. When they first started it was quite frequently in the news about how the officers didn't like them. I think they changed, to some extent (you still see some complaining about them on sites like Reddit or Voat for example - I'm sure others), when they realized it also got rid of some of the bullshit complaints about abuses that simply didn't happen. I suspect it's the same ones that complained then that complain now. I don't see it as hypocrisy, I see them as wrong but not hypocritical.
Hmm... Have you ever worked somewhere that has a real security detail? They're not going to be happy if they're not alerted first. The EMTs are going to be even more pissed. Additionally, 911 calls usually ask that you remain on the line. Call security, administer first aid, wait for security to arrive. (EMTs or HAZMAT will arrive later. Security will have someone on-scene in a jiffy.)
As all of our code was internal, I might have giggled a little if it was done on the dev end (not in production) and on the 1st of April. We were pretty lax during that one day of the year. It hampered productivity but, in return, we got people with honed skills and insights. So, there's that. I don't think they ever used this but they did use others. Before I turned my code over and stopped working on it myself I had an "I'm drunk" menu nested in and unfinished. Fortunately, I hired professionals. They had to re-write a huge bunch of it because, "Comments go in the code, not on a coffee soaked index card, asshole."
I am not a good programmer. It works. It's not my major. Man, I suck. I should write a CMS in Perl as my opus and gift it to the world. I'm gonna put that on my bucket list.
That's never how I've seen it done anywhere - up to, and including, when working in a detention facility while enlisted. The policy has always been, call security and security deals with the EMTs. The added seconds will save minutes of confusion.
No, you call security - while you're on the phone with them, they'll call the EMTs or other applicable hazard workers. The added few seconds is worth it for the coordinated response that is better left to the trained security staff.
Which is why I pointed out that the AC was a moron.
They've always wanted to not be recorded. Hell, were I a thug in a blue uniform, I'd want the same thing (I imagine). There's no hypocrisy here - they're just still wanting to hide their misdeeds.
They're all commercial - you pay for them when you pay for the OS. I'm not sure if Chrome fits but it seems to - you buy the ChromeOS and you get Chrome with it. That makes them commercial.
As I recall it was someone coming from an ex-communist country that said it. At least that's how I interpreted it. I think it was, indeed, partially humor but humor often contains a nugget of truth and insight.
Absolutely, but I don't see any hypocrisy which is what I was responding to. The cops didn't, usually, want the videos in the first place. They still don't. I'm not sure what you're responding to.
That doesn't make sense. Relaxed drug laws don't mean people do more drugs - they mean that people don't go to jail for doing the drugs they are doing. In fact, you'd expect more crime where the tougher drug laws are as people are going to drugs regardless. If people couldn't get drugs we'd not have a "drug problem." It's not like lax drug laws means people will suddenly decide to go do heroin. If they want drugs they can already get them.
So, no, the crime rate will not correlate with lax drug laws. And the GPP was a moron but we knew that. Weed doesn't usually make you go out and commit additional crimes in and of itself.
This is not an opinion on cops being filmed nor a statement supporting or refuting it. However, the cops wear body cameras and have dash cameras because we told that that's what we wanted. I don't see that as hypocrisy, really.
If asked, then yes, I think cops should have to accept that they're *also* being filmed by the public.
MIT would like to have a word with you. ;-)
No, I don't really care. Yes, there are a lot of Asian people there - I stopped by the campus, about two months ago, and the stereotypes are true. It's full of Asians. I look Asian to most people so I guess I'd fit in now.
For example, open source firefox has ensured no commercial browser will exist for a long time, if ever. That's because a commercial product can't easily compete with a product priced at $0. So you're stuck with the slow, buggy firefox for a long time, because no one will bother developing an alternative.
Edge, Safari, and Internet Explorer all still exist as commercial browsers. There are probably others, one might include Chrome in the list, but that's enough to make me scratch my head at your statement. I can't actually speak on the usability of any of them, nor for Firefox really, as I use Opera which is based on Chromium.
I don't know, you're asking for "a Lot."
Ha! I kill me.
I'm not proud. Low hanging fruit and all that.