"the self destuct mechanism of all the equipment on board consisted of a regular hammer."
Actually that's a pretty good idea. a) it is always forward compatible, b) requires little technical training, c) will still work in all but extreme cases of technical failure.
stochastic resonance is first an analog phenomenon and present only in certain specially crafted nonlinear dynamical systems in certain potentially narrow parameter regimes.
It's extremely unlikely that any decent-bandwith commercial communication system would exploit it.
You could look at newer observed data. For instance the IAEA reports. Read them, for real. The technical correlations to weapons development are very strong.
"Why isn't it acceptable for Iran to say "Never again" and defend itself against neighbors that would see Iran destroyed?"
It is, but there aren't any neighbors that would see Iran destroyed out of essentialist hate. (After all, prior to the revolution, Israel had quite a good relationship with Iran..)
Well, because there are no terrorist groups who have a policy of eliminating the nation of Iran and expelling/exterminating any of its Persian citizens. And there are no nations who in the recent past, had such a policy, and had engaged in armed combat to achieve that goal, and prior to that there was not a millennium-long history of anti-Persian pogroms and peculiarly virulent prejudice.
If Russia decided that Iran should be eliminated and ran obscenely prejudiced anti-Persian propaganda on its state television for the last 50 years, plus all the above, then there could be a good case.
In particular Larry Summers (who was somewhat overly criticized) was addressing the question of the population of faculty at Harvard.
There's lots of evidence that mathematical ability, certainly on average and in up to high school level is much less gender dependent than typical prejudices say.
But the ability (and drive) to be a research mathematician able to get a job at Princeton or Harvard is so tremendously remote from the "central tendency"
It is very difficult to explain to most people just how much preposterously smarter and driven those people are than the average. In mathematics they are enormously more talented than the very smartest person that almost everybody knows, and almost everybody has no idea how much of a difference there is.
I have a PhD in physics from a good university and am pretty bright, I could be reasonably successful at almost every cognitively demanding job given enough time & training and motivation, but there is no possible way I could ever be a serious research mathemetician at that kind of level. The people who were able to do that made it obvious by age 20. This level is so extreme (and not really apparent until about 20) that any measures of central tendencies doesn't address the question people have asked.
And for the time Ada is not a bad language at all, especially if you're mature enough to know that the quality of the result is more important than you.
Unless Google does something radically Ballmerian with Android, WebOS will bitrot. That's because there's no clear commitment from HP to have a continuous source of money, and there isn't any obvious evidence HP will be very ge
Post opensourcing, Mozilla was lousy for quite a while until Firefox. Firefox was pretty successful because there was a 1st version of a good product, skilled people motivated to work on it, and very importantly Google supplied them with quite a bit of stable money: payment flow from the Firefox home page. Then, Google had a strong interest in preventing IE from taking over, and funding Mozilla fairly generously was aligned with that goal. Now, Google has other imperatives and they have their own browser. As a consequence Firefox has less stable leadership and if they lose the revenue stream
By contrast, there is no particularly compelling reason for HP to fund WebOS development. What's in it for them? Does it help sell HP hardware? No. Does it help damage a competitor? No. Putting a few HP employees on it is not the same as giving lots of money to an independent foundation who can hire.
If HP needs those people to do something else, they will give up their WebOS, because people will follow the paycheck & whoever is doing their performance review.
It is quite possibly a fake. It is also possibly another drone, i.e. not the RQ-170, but a model which is still undisclosed. Its nose looks remarkably like a b-2, it maybe a Northrop product. Or a fake.
Why do the Iranians show it on TV with that funny curtain in front of it? Why can't we see the landing gear?
The main UI innovation of Win95 was to copy NextSTEP, except not quite right. It is foolish to have the 'kill window' button too close to any other button. Kill should be on one side (e.g. right), and other functions on the left.
In both looks and basic functionality for a desktop OS, NeXTSTEP is still more "right" than anything else. Even MacOSX screwed up and most apps have red(kill) next to yellow and green basically copying Win95.
NeXTSTEP with the MacOSX dock (which is clearly an evolution of the NeXT dock) would still be quite excellent.
Because certain releases introduced problems, customers told management to "Fix it or Else" and then management emphasized "remove the suckage" for the next version, and they were rewarded with sales & happy customers. Then with happy customers, the development team got the leeway to introduce new major technology for the following release. Goto 1.
"Windows 9 is going to be everything and nothing at once. They're stripping the kernel to its core and use it as the basis for all their products. Desktop OS, mobile OS, Xbox, set top boxes, etc. It's going to be a great thing for MS because they'll be able to focus on improving a unified core. Basically, they're trying to do with Windows what everyone has been doing with Linux for years, make it something that's easily scalable and customizable across a family of products.
It's going to save MS a ton of money and allow them to focus on keeping their products secure and fast instead of constantly having to patch crappy modules of code that have been carried over for a decade"
How is that going to work? They'll be supporting the New, Really new We Mean It This Time This Is The Shiznit API and all the old ones starting from WFC, J++, silverlight, some of the.net, etc etc rot but still need to be patched.
How much of the support problems are from the kernel and how much from the huge layers of stuff on top?
No, that's false. The USA has a wider qualitative edge in non-nuclear weaponry. It is to the USA's advantage to eliminate potential use of nuclear weaponry from all sides.
This of course is exactly the argument for Keynesian economics.
If you're going to print money (in effect) it would be better to print money and spend it directly from the government (increasing demand) and or give broad-based tax cut of substantial size (increasing demand), so that the private banks will believe it profitable to lend. If there were sufficient demand, then the free-market will take it to itself to loan the money----the lazy banks will start to notice they're getting scooped by the faster and more effective banks and their shareholders will start whining.
There are two levers of profitability for bank lending: supply & demand. They're supplied fine with free money from the Fed, but they don't want to bother with the hard work of doing individual lending.
The Federal Reserve is a government institution. There is a whole part of the U.S. Code dealing with the Federal Reserve, describing its structure.
Ownership, de facto, is indicated by (a) control of management (b) ownership of profits.
The U.S. Federal government has control over the management as the President nominates and Senate confirms the Fed Board of Governors, which is the chief executive power in the Fed. Any profits earned by the Fed are turned over to the U.S. Treasury to retire debt. It engages in policies directed by the FRBOG who report, regularly, to Congress. This is all in black-letter law.
The Fed is a government institution, and most importantly it has powers different from a regular bank, and has motivations and actions different from a private bank.
It is not a traditional cabinet department of course, and some of its employees may not be US government civil service. The National Gallery also has employees who are not US Government civil service.
What part of US code *specifically* instantiates, oh Capital One Bank? nothing of course.
"But then, you can't really expect someone with a jackboot comfortably pressed against their neck to really be able to think or understand much of anything, other than what the guy with the assault rifle tells him to think or understand."
Right. People with actual jackboots really had municipal waste processing on their minds during their pogroms.
"The point is that it makes no sense for garbage collection or for garbage dumps to be owned by municipalities or granted monopolies by municipalities. The only reason that I can see that anyone would think they should is simply because someone thinks that government can do a better job than the private sector."
Think about it just a little wee bit and lay off the libertarian meth. Like think about garbage trucks doing their pickup rounds. Notice how they go down a street and pickup *every* trash bin? Instead of 7 different trucks picking up some subset of bins. The economics are obvious, whoever 'owns' a neighborhood will have the lowest cost. If it were entirely private then of course this is a lucrative monopoly because everybody needs to throw out shit. Maybe its' then better to just have it done with taxes.
Notice how large commercial institutions (where pickup is more localized, pickup points less numerous, and volumes larger and therefore the economics are different) do contract privately in a free market?
And then think about the potential consequence of no municipal garbage collection: filth and public health problems when X or Y didn't pay their bill (or did, but like cell phone companies the billing system got messed up), or Z went out of business with 35% of the customers' contracts.
Maybe most municipalities have public garbage collection because they learned from the past, and there's some good reasons for it.
Historically, fascists and actual leftists fought bitterly, and often to the death. Until 1945, the fascists nearly always won, as they were less intellectual and more ruthless.
a) In the USA credit card issuers (issuing bank, not the interchange network) are liable for fraudulent transactions, losing 100% of the amount (as the customer will not pay, usually) is a loss to the bank even if they win 2-3% interchange.
b) They will chargeback to charities many of the fraudulent transactions which occur card-not-present (i.e. internet payments), so the charities won't get much or any of it. I don't know if there are any additional fees which may actually hurt the charity.
c) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, the issuing banks may start to notice it and block payments from all cardholders, hurting the charity's normal fundraising.
d) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, then that charity's bank (acquirer) is likely to drop its credit-card processing agreement, disrupting the charity's normal fundraising. There may even be some penalties if they do not have a sufficiently up-to-date website and on-line fraud detection software/procedures.
I work professionally in some aspect of credit card software (at a tech company and not a bank).
In sum, this proposed action is likely to create some extra work for bank employees, though it will probably not cause financially significant losses as many online transactions (not processing with "Secured by Visa" or MC's similar procedure) can be charged back. Charities are unlikely to benefit. They may be harmed.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you get the attention of Fox News, then you get incinerated by a Predator drone.
They probably did that because the hospital was wickedly expensive for their incomes and could drive them and their families into horrible poverty and debt.
Slashdot Mirror
"the self destuct mechanism of all the equipment on board consisted of a regular hammer."
Actually that's a pretty good idea. a) it is always forward compatible, b) requires little technical training, c) will still work in all but extreme cases of technical failure.
stochastic resonance is first an analog phenomenon and present only in certain specially crafted nonlinear dynamical systems in certain potentially narrow parameter regimes.
It's extremely unlikely that any decent-bandwith commercial communication system would exploit it.
"Does this mean Iran had one or more airplanes flying over the drone? Interesting, interesting."
Or a Chinese satellite.
You could look at newer observed data. For instance the IAEA reports. Read them, for real. The technical correlations to weapons development are very strong.
"Why isn't it acceptable for Iran to say "Never again" and defend itself against neighbors that would see Iran destroyed?"
It is, but there aren't any neighbors that would see Iran destroyed out of essentialist hate. (After all, prior to the revolution, Israel had quite a good relationship with Iran..)
Well, because there are no terrorist groups who have a policy of eliminating the nation of Iran and expelling/exterminating any of its Persian citizens. And there are no nations who in the recent past, had such a policy, and had engaged in armed combat to achieve that goal, and prior to that there was not a millennium-long history of anti-Persian pogroms and peculiarly virulent prejudice.
If Russia decided that Iran should be eliminated and ran obscenely prejudiced anti-Persian propaganda on its state television for the last 50 years, plus all the above, then there could be a good case.
What terms would a victorious Nasser offer Israel?
In particular Larry Summers (who was somewhat overly criticized) was addressing the question of the population of faculty at Harvard.
There's lots of evidence that mathematical ability, certainly on average and in up to high school level is much less gender dependent than typical prejudices say.
But the ability (and drive) to be a research mathematician able to get a job at Princeton or Harvard is so tremendously remote from the "central tendency"
It is very difficult to explain to most people just how much preposterously smarter and driven those people are than the average. In mathematics they are enormously more talented than the very smartest person that almost everybody knows, and almost everybody has no idea how much of a difference there is.
I have a PhD in physics from a good university and am pretty bright, I could be reasonably successful at almost every cognitively demanding job given enough time & training and motivation, but there is no possible way I could ever be a serious research mathemetician at that kind of level. The people who were able to do that made it obvious by age 20. This level is so extreme (and not really apparent until about 20) that any measures of central tendencies doesn't address the question people have asked.
The Saturn V was designed by many committees.
And for the time Ada is not a bad language at all, especially if you're mature enough to know that the quality of the result is more important than you.
Unless Google does something radically Ballmerian with Android, WebOS will bitrot. That's because there's no clear commitment from HP to have a continuous source of money, and there isn't any obvious evidence HP will be very ge
Post opensourcing, Mozilla was lousy for quite a while until Firefox. Firefox was pretty successful because there was a 1st version of a good product, skilled people motivated to work on it, and very importantly Google supplied them with quite a bit of stable money: payment flow from the Firefox home page. Then, Google had a strong interest in preventing IE from taking over, and funding Mozilla fairly generously was aligned with that goal. Now, Google has other imperatives and they have their own browser. As a consequence Firefox has less stable leadership and if they lose the revenue stream
By contrast, there is no particularly compelling reason for HP to fund WebOS development. What's in it for them? Does it help sell HP hardware? No. Does it help damage a competitor? No. Putting a few HP employees on it is not the same as giving lots of money to an independent foundation who can hire.
If HP needs those people to do something else, they will give up their WebOS, because people will follow the paycheck & whoever is doing their performance review.
Submitted-by: Larry Wall
Posting-number: Volume 13, Issue 1
Archive-name: perl/part01
[ Perl is kind of designed to make awk and sed semi-
Stop!!!
You had me with 'kind of designed'.
the one letter per word algorithm, e.g First Unix Command Creator, and its obviously improved successor bj.
It is quite possibly a fake. It is also possibly another drone, i.e. not the RQ-170, but a model which is still undisclosed. Its nose looks remarkably like a b-2, it maybe a Northrop product. Or a fake.
Why do the Iranians show it on TV with that funny curtain in front of it? Why can't we see the landing gear?
Is it because they're a bunch of pallets?
The main UI innovation of Win95 was to copy NextSTEP, except not quite right. It is foolish to have the 'kill window' button too close to any other button. Kill should be on one side (e.g. right), and other functions on the left.
Nextstep: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/NeXTSTEP_desktop.jpg
Win95: http://theoligarch.com/images/win95.gif
In both looks and basic functionality for a desktop OS, NeXTSTEP is still more "right" than anything else. Even MacOSX screwed up and most apps have red(kill) next to yellow and green basically copying Win95.
NeXTSTEP with the MacOSX dock (which is clearly an evolution of the NeXT dock) would still be quite excellent.
Yes, of course.
Because certain releases introduced problems, customers told management to "Fix it or Else" and then management emphasized "remove the suckage" for the next version, and they were rewarded with sales & happy customers. Then with happy customers, the development team got the leeway to introduce new major technology for the following release. Goto 1.
"Windows 9 is going to be everything and nothing at once. They're stripping the kernel to its core and use it as the basis for all their products. Desktop OS, mobile OS, Xbox, set top boxes, etc. It's going to be a great thing for MS because they'll be able to focus on improving a unified core. Basically, they're trying to do with Windows what everyone has been doing with Linux for years, make it something that's easily scalable and customizable across a family of products.
It's going to save MS a ton of money and allow them to focus on keeping their products secure and fast instead of constantly having to patch crappy modules of code that have been carried over for a decade"
How is that going to work? They'll be supporting the New, Really new We Mean It This Time This Is The Shiznit API and all the old ones starting from WFC, J++, silverlight, some of the .net, etc etc rot but still need to be patched.
How much of the support problems are from the kernel and how much from the huge layers of stuff on top?
Finally, there's a really funny question of "what exactly will you bomb at a nuclear plant". Assuming it is not passive-safe:
a) diesel backup generators
b) electric lines bringing in external power
c) generators
to cause a station blackout as in Fukushima.
d) waste storage
This assumes a suicide squad since it's likely they'd be surrounded.
#d is to make it unlikely that authorities will enter in order to ascertain that a,b,c have been compromised
No, that's false. The USA has a wider qualitative edge in non-nuclear weaponry. It is to the USA's advantage to eliminate potential use of nuclear weaponry from all sides.
This of course is exactly the argument for Keynesian economics.
If you're going to print money (in effect) it would be better to print money and spend it directly from the government (increasing demand) and or give broad-based tax cut of substantial size (increasing demand), so that the private banks will believe it profitable to lend. If there were sufficient demand, then the free-market will take it to itself to loan the money----the lazy banks will start to notice they're getting scooped by the faster and more effective banks and their shareholders will start whining.
There are two levers of profitability for bank lending: supply & demand. They're supplied fine with free money from the Fed, but they don't want to bother with the hard work of doing individual lending.
The Federal Reserve is a government institution. There is a whole part of the U.S. Code dealing with the Federal Reserve, describing its structure.
Ownership, de facto, is indicated by (a) control of management (b) ownership of profits.
The U.S. Federal government has control over the management as the President nominates and Senate confirms the Fed Board of Governors, which is the chief executive power in the Fed. Any profits earned by the Fed are turned over to the U.S. Treasury to retire debt. It engages in policies directed by the FRBOG who report, regularly, to Congress. This is all in black-letter law.
The Fed is a government institution, and most importantly it has powers different from a regular bank, and has motivations and actions different from a private bank.
It is not a traditional cabinet department of course, and some of its employees may not be US government civil service. The National Gallery also has employees who are not US Government civil service.
What part of US code *specifically* instantiates, oh Capital One Bank? nothing of course.
"But then, you can't really expect someone with a jackboot comfortably pressed against their neck to really be able to think or understand much of anything, other than what the guy with the assault rifle tells him to think or understand."
Right. People with actual jackboots really had municipal waste processing on their minds during their pogroms.
"The point is that it makes no sense for garbage collection or for garbage dumps to be owned by municipalities or granted monopolies by municipalities. The only reason that I can see that anyone would think they should is simply because someone thinks that government can do a better job than the private sector."
Think about it just a little wee bit and lay off the libertarian meth. Like think about garbage trucks doing their pickup rounds. Notice how they go down a street and pickup *every* trash bin? Instead of 7 different trucks picking up some subset of bins. The economics are obvious, whoever 'owns' a neighborhood will have the lowest cost. If it were entirely private then of course this is a lucrative monopoly because everybody needs to throw out shit. Maybe its' then better to just have it done with taxes.
Notice how large commercial institutions (where pickup is more localized, pickup points less numerous, and volumes larger and therefore the economics are different) do contract privately in a free market?
And then think about the potential consequence of no municipal garbage collection: filth and public health problems when X or Y didn't pay their bill (or did, but like cell phone companies the billing system got messed up), or Z went out of business with 35% of the customers' contracts.
Maybe most municipalities have public garbage collection because they learned from the past, and there's some good reasons for it.
Historically, fascists and actual leftists fought bitterly, and often to the death. Until 1945, the fascists nearly always won, as they were less intellectual and more ruthless.
a) In the USA credit card issuers (issuing bank, not the interchange network) are liable for fraudulent transactions, losing 100% of the amount (as the customer will not pay, usually) is a loss to the bank even if they win 2-3% interchange.
b) They will chargeback to charities many of the fraudulent transactions which occur card-not-present (i.e. internet payments), so the charities won't get much or any of it. I don't know if there are any additional fees which may actually hurt the charity.
c) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, the issuing banks may start to notice it and block payments from all cardholders, hurting the charity's normal fundraising.
d) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, then that charity's bank (acquirer) is likely to drop its credit-card processing agreement, disrupting the charity's normal fundraising. There may even be some penalties if they do not have a sufficiently up-to-date website and on-line fraud detection software/procedures.
I work professionally in some aspect of credit card software (at a tech company and not a bank).
In sum, this proposed action is likely to create some extra work for bank employees, though it will probably not cause financially significant losses as many online transactions (not processing with "Secured by Visa" or MC's similar procedure) can be charged back. Charities are unlikely to benefit. They may be harmed.
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you get the attention of Fox News,
then you get incinerated by a Predator drone.
How about: they needed every software engineer they had to work on turning NextSTEP into MacOS X, fixing MacOSX and making iPod software.
As in: "does your software job help us sell more hardware? (a) yes (b) transfer or be fired"
They probably did that because the hospital was wickedly expensive for their incomes and could drive them and their families into horrible poverty and debt.