But the NOAA satellites (and quite a few other satellites) use a circularly polarized signal, and for just a tiny bit more money (perhaps the cost of the dongle) you can make a MUCH better antenna for circularly polarized signals. Some designs are just helixes made with coax cable, some are just a couple of wires in an x-shape.
Google is your friend, and building an antenna is a fun cheap weekend project and will greatly enhance your results when hunting for satellite signals.
P.S. if you make a circularly polarized antenna and you discover that you made a LH polarization instead of the RH that you wanted (or vice versa), just turn the antenna upside down. It may behoove you if you are planning on listening to signals with both polarities to construct one that is easily flipped over.
Did some digging and there's a whole load of things which can potentially be picked up, including dead satellites . RTL-SDR.com has a whole load of awesome looking tutorials .
 http://www.rtl-sdr.com/receiving-dead-satellites-rtl-sdr/ http://www.rtl-sdr.com/category/tutorial/
But before that, I decided I wanted a proper "hardware radio", and bought myself a portable wide band radio receiver  (great value for the price, I advice it). Then when I was about to get one of these dongles, as usual and as for the above radio, I got sucked into the reviews suggesting this or that other model for better sensitivity or extra features. Now I understand the price range for these cheap sticks is just in the order of a few tenths at maximum, but maybe there is a chance anyone has investigated a bit more on the available choices already?
For example.. the one that has been written about in the article has 4 stars and 159 reviews while the first alternative in the "Amazon recommends" box has some 940 reviews and same 4 star score for just +2 (but I'm not even sure they do exactly the same things.. sorry). So, just wondering, maybe someone has already gone through this search and can recommend the best one to get?
For fuck's sake.
CFAA criminal sentencing guidelines may very well have contributed to Swartz's suicide. They incentivized prosecutors to create complex, showy indictments cross-linking multiple felony charges (because exploiting unauthorized access in furtherance of other felonies is an accelerator in the CFAA). CFAA may be broken in several ways.
But CFAA is also the sole federal statute governing unauthorized access. In civil litigation, CFAA is the only statute that provides a civil cause of action relating to unauthorized access to computers of any sort.
Invoking Aaron Swartz in an argument over who's allowed to show apartment ads where is manipulative and grotesque.
So I thought afterwards, hey, the economy is kinda sketchy still and looking at this stuff sure is neat... I should build a real tool that robustly and respectfully logs daily post totals for more locales, and maybe build out a cool little graph portal. Maybe I can even do a little NLP to make it smarter. hey, it's craigslist, they're community minded.. they thank me when I post, they won't mind. They give pencils to teachers even.
So I email them, and Craig responds in a cc'd message with a 'hey cool, can this guy use our RSS feeds'? At which point, the assholes that worked there started inventing every excuse under the sun as to why doing so would totally damage their infrastructure (because you know, polling RSS every half an hour is total abuse.)
Anyway, that's when I realized that all the hippie-dippie stuff was just window dressing and that I really truly was dealing with a really special species of asshole.
I put the project down and walked away. The end.
This is interesging to me. A couple years ago being young and naive i received a cease and desist order from craigslist legal team demanding i remove my craigslist scraper from github. It was largely a toy project to play around with an html parser library i wanted to learn anx thought it could be useful. Of course I now understand it was against their tos and from an ethical standpoint, avoid scraping anything unless getting permission, but at the time I was terrified I'd be sued for a ton of money. It felt incredibly aggressive to go after me , a student at the time.
So I'm curious.. is it illegal to scrape but ok to release the source code? Where is the line drawn?
That can help us move away from this sort of chicken and egg problem with user generated data. These companies are basically hogging it because they were able to build the user base.
If we can get the data in a non-profit store with a licensing scheme that basically says you must as a part of using this data add any user-generated data submitted to your website back to this store so other developers can build products on top of it, we could really innovate in classifieds and social networks.
Perhaps something like that can be funded by EFF or related organization... because then we can potentially apply governance to that user generated data which has not been possible with private companies.
The chicken and egg problem can be solved if big non-profit tech and civil rights brands like the ACLU, EFF, Wikipedia, etc. all get behind this and market it.
There's a link to an interesting law review article on how the CFAA can make it a criminal act for arbitrarily banned users to even browse to a public webpage:http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...
It's an absurd result and frustratingly unaddressed by the courts.
>> The Court has ruled that usersnot craigslistown the copyrights in their postings.
>> ... Craigslist finally conceded in Court that no such harm or impairment ever occurred.
Everything above seems to be against Craigslist. Then why does 3taps have to agree to a settlement to pay Craigslist $1 million?
And if there are other parts of the court ruling that went against 3taps which this blog post doesn't mention, then how can Craigslist be forced to forward that money to EFF?
Maybe "3taps lacks the resources to continue the fight" implies that the lawsuit has drained their bank accounts and they are out of money.
Well you know the rest of the story. :)
Craigslist discovered that it had become (has become) the "MLS" of rentals... and perhaps even more accurately -- it's a brokerage of _housing_ data -- both rentals and sales. So when property management companies (PMCs) discovered how darn easy it was, for example, to flood craigslist with multiple ads for the same unit, or to flood it with units that were never available to begin and thus alter market perception -- certain people got exactly what they wanted: hyperinflation in rents, or the subsequent upward pressure on housing prices, or both.
As outraged as everybody was about this, it is exactly what the real MLS does when you decide to sell your house. You sign a contract promising to pay some Realtor's brokerage company 6 percent of whatever your house goes for -- in that contract you are essentially giving them the "copyright" of your house listing; they own it on the MLS and that is why you have to pay them the big bucks. Never mind that they do basically NOTHING other than simple photography and data entry to post on the MLS... but now they require you give them ~$66K of your equity for their 3 hours of work. (Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_28512250/report-silic... Median price of "entry level" home in San Mateo County = $1.1M).
Same thing is happening in rentals / property management co's (PMCs), but slightly different symptoms.
Nobody is attacking the problem the right way, though. 42Floors tried the experiment and found it to be a failure, too. (Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9881213)
The market should be putting more pressure on brokers to compete with each other ... damn that 6 percent. (Right, but the NAR signed a non-compete agreement with itself so it gets to do that)
Hackers should stop building tools that make it easier and cheaper for the PMCs and real estate agents to steal everybody's equity.
Can I build a Facebook scrapper and redistribute it to other sites?
Big Syd Mead image collection: http://imgur.com/a/s9Oyr#0
First load this up:
Then open up this Syd Mead gallery to full screen and click through:
Much Googling later, I realized that no one else knew either. It was just whatever Syd Mead happened to be, which as best I could figure was "sci-fi artist, except too respectable to lump in with those grubby sci-fi nerds."
These days "futurist" seems to have a much more well-known and clearly defined meaning that doesn't really include designing movie backdrops, so Mead has been updated to "visual futurist," which has the same definition as above.
I've always thought writing assembly manually was for some very specific edge cases, or to talk to some very specific hardware, but that it was just a waste of time for anything else, especially compared to C (and especially with all the progress in compilers).
Is it the death by a thousand cuts scenario, or are there some big chunks of performances gained thanks to some specific tricks (and if so, could you give some example ?). I'm thinking maybe cryptographic functions ?
I've always wondered, how many man hours does writing a small web server like that take?
The -logpath option is fine, but it would be nice if it could create subdirectories too (e.g. $LOGPATH/YYYY/mm/access.log.YYYYmmdd ). Otherwise, over time the log dir is going to get unwieldy.
I'm currently running several sites in alpine+rwasa Docker containers; I'm liking having a set of entirely isolated web servers based on a 10MB container image, each apparently consuming ~6KB RAM while idle.
I'd also like to say, as someone who is quite ignorant of writing x86 assembly, the function hook example is incredibly readable and clear. I'm looking forward to grokking the rest of the code base in attempt to learn more.
Thanks for the hard work!
EDIT: Here's the header of the file that contains their TLS implementation. I'll let you be the judge: https://gist.github.com/SirCmpwn/ec8aaec128aa3e47ddda
I was disappointed of how aggressive the libav guys where during the fork. They changed the content of ffmpeg.org (which they had legitimate access to) to claim that libav was now the new name of the project. Then they replaced the ffmpeg package in Debian with their own version.
It's entirely possible to maintain both packages in Debian with the alternatives framework. This whole false dichotomy and calling ffmpeg the fork is not helpful in my opinion. So I'm glad that ffmpeg is getting it's package back. Forks are good and should stand on their own merit instead of doing politics like that.
I tried this criteria, I divide the committers in three groups:
A) Michael Niedermayer
B) People with more commits in FFmpeg, i.e. Clment Bsch, James AlmerCarl, Eugen Hoyos, ...
C) People with more commits in libav, i.e. Vittorio Giovara, Martin Storsj, Anton Khirnov, ...
(I supouse there are other commits from people outside the published table, but they are few.)
libav FFmpeg A) 46 1831 B) 37 1071 C) 1074 856 Tot: 1157 3758
Developer libav FFmpeg --------------------------------- Michael Niedermayer 46 1831 --------------------------------- Clment Bsch 179 James Almer 155 Carl Eugen Hoyos 150 Andreas Cadhalpun 21 114 Lukasz Marek 98 Paul B Mahol 93 Ronald S. Bultje 85 wm4 16 83 Christophe Gisquet 66 Benoit Fouet 48 >>>Subtotal 37 1071 --------------------------------- Vittorio Giovara 294 294 Martin Storsj 253 252 Anton Khirnov 206 197 Luca Barbato 131 113 Diego Biurrun 72 Rmi Denis-Courmont 32 Hendrik Leppkes 17 Himangi Saraogi 16 Gabriel Dume 16 Federico Tomassetti 14 Peter Meerwald 12 Janne Grunau 11 >>>Subtotal 1074 856 ------------------------------------ >>>>>>Total 1157 3758
I can't comment on code quality, project management, etc and frankly I don't care. If one library causes problems to every bit of my system, it should stay off until it is on par with the library it tries to replace provided that both libraries use a free software compatible license.
The great thing about open source is that even if they step away it's not like the code is going anywhere. To an end user of ffmpeg it would still continue to function.
I personally had no idea ffmpeg was forked to libav until one day I tried to install it in Ubuntu and was like...wtf. Then I installed libav and went about my day.
This is weird to hear as a consumer of these libraries. When people ask why I prefer one or the other for my own use cases, I tell them that FFmpeg has the better API and the better format support (specifically vastly more pixel formats/depths in its lossless codecs). But regarding API, at least the parts that concern me, FFmpeg is a bit fuller and requires less boilerplate. libav* have a large surface area, so even minor affordances like avformat_alloc_output_context2 and avcodec_find_best_pix_fmt_of_list are helpful.
To be fair to Libav, due to being "downstream" FFmpeg has benefited greatly from their improvements, e.g. AVBuffer and the redone AVFrame management on top of it. They absolutely deserve credit for improving the API. But FFmpeg's API being effectively a superset of Libav, as a plain old user of the libraries it doesn't really make sense to target the latter.
That's to say nothing about the politics or people involved in the projects, it's just a matter of practicality.
ffmpeg has maintained compatibility, making it really easy for downstream users and distro maintainers to keep going, whilst continuously adding new features and improvements, including aggressively merging those placed in libav (I guess as long as they aren't deletions or cleanups?).
I feel like there's a lot to learn in this whole drama and that it hasn't been very deeply explored. libav team originally claimed that ffmpeg's leadership had gone dark/fallen off the map, but they sure came back quickly to express discontentment at the mutiny. libav team undoubtedly has talented people working on it (wasn't DarkShikari on the libav side of the schism?) and libav/ffmpeg share a lot of goals. You'd think they could come to some type of compromise less onerous than this entire saga has been. IMO it's a failure from all sides that this fork was even a thing. A phased, unified, slow, and well-managed release process like Python 2 -> Python 3 might have made all of this unnecessary.
Two things that startled me:
First, there is apparently a market for vulnerabilities that bypass the Flash access controls for cameras and audio recording. There can be no benign purpose for those exploits. Nobody penetration tests a Fortune 500 company looking to see if they can light up the cameras on worker desktops.
Second, there's an eighty thousand dollar price tag for a Netgear vulnerability. That shocked me: serverside, highly targeted. Only, it turns out, there probably isn't any such market. Apparently, some of these bugs are listed for sale at exorbitant price with no anticipation of ever selling them. They're not listed at close to a clearing price, but rather just aspirationally, with the idea being that anyone who will someday, maybe, engage a serious zero-day broker for a Netgear vuln is probably going to derive six figures of income from that bug.
That's the theory, at least.
For future HN bug bounty/black market threads: note the absence of Facebook XSS vulns on these price lists. Nobody is paying tens of thousands of dollars for web vulns. Except the vendors. :)
A nice thing about it too, is that it is very easy to make something that is compatible with both desktop web browsers and smartphones. When presenting at a game jam or hackathon, it's nice to be able to push what you've done onto GitHub pages and encourage your audience to try things themselves.
A post on "How to Read in College" targeted at college age students who (paraphrased) "can't possibly read everything assigned to them" goes over...3000 words without even an overview?
He then adds nonsense disclaimers, buried at the end. This post is hopeless.
Do any of you know a way to hinder/defeat these detection techniques?
Having read half the book at the time it came out, I noticed that there is pretty much nothing in common between all the various founders. In particular founders of RIM and Craigslist are people from different planets. I complained loudly about it, and eventually a friend pointed out that there was something I overlooked - they have all tried. Somehow that turned out to be a profound revelation to me. Combined with another push from a colleague, who's said "Denis, you always talk about these ideas you had, how come you never do much with them", that got me to start doing things rather than thinking about them.
For most founders the situation is far bleaker though. There's an incredible amount of sacrifice required to even attempt a startup if you have a family, can't get investors, and all your friends and family are poor people. And yet this is what most people face today.
Determination alone really isn't enough. You need help. The one thing all successful founders have in common is that they found help early on from people in a position to help.
Example: how is it possible that Google couldn't make its own successful video streaming service and had to buy YT for billions? They had the expertise and money, but it didn't catch on.
Why did previous tablets fail and iPad succeed? Microsoft was into tablets long before iPad.
Sometimes, no matter how rich or smart you are, or how good your idea is, it's going to flop because it didn't encounter the perfect environment and moment to take roots. Because not even rich players can control the environment, they resort to buying promising startups trying to hitch a ride to success on their wings, or alternatively, the YCombinator model of seeding and grooming startups. How many of YC startups flopped, even with help?
Edit: seems I am not in agreement with the crowd. Instead of downvoting, please argue in replies.
It would also be useful to hear more actual failure stories, not only those from founders who have managed to turn things around, but those who just failed. Even if it scares some away from startups, maybe there are some lessons to be learnt too.
Thanks to Jessica for all her work and heart she is putting helping founders succeed and this way inspire others around the world to keep creating great things.
Could founder success early on be broken into 2 parts?:1. Founder EQ (internal + external) and2. Market/Time.
We know that in the wrong market/time startups have a hard time gaining traction. Sometimes you need to give time i.e. keep going through the dark times; to reach a time when the market is ready/needs what you are offering. It's that analogy "A rising tide lifts all boats". So you need to get your boat into the water.
As for Founder EQ. Internally - strong to battle through the tough emotional times (perseverance, adaptability etc) and externally - how the founders communicate and work together to get stuff done. We know founder disputes kill many early startups.
Once traction is gained and money flows then those 2 might not be as important. Money does solve many problems. At that point everyone inside the company is spinning the cog and inertia takes over.
Or maybe it just sounds sort of perversely tautological to me. Seeing people follow necessary but not sufficient conditions just sounds perilous to me, even as a founder myself.
This can be true, but I think often, people tend to reject an idea because it does fit with what they already know.
People look for usefulness, and will hastily disregard something that reminds them of a previous innovation that failed. I don't doubt they are sometimes wrong, and perseverance on a seemingly weak innovation can be turned into something wildly successful, I just wonder how many founders wasted much effort trying to succeed when their innovation never really had a chance to be very useful.
1. Were determined.
2. Demonstrated perseverance.
3. Suffered rejection.
4. Are adaptable.
5. Weren't motivated entirely by money.
The primary reason a founder succeeds is that he or she works on the right thing at the right time and does it in the right way. That's vague and practically unactionable, so it's not going to become a popular view, but the reality is there's no set of character traits that guarantee success, and there's no blueprint for building a successful company. If there was, 90% of the founders in Silicon Valley would be fabulously wealthy, and half the people who attend Startup School would have a unicorn within two years.
You can have incredible character traits, but if you're working on the wrong thing, or going about building the right thing at the wrong time in the wrong ways, it doesn't matter how smart, hard-working, adaptable, etc. you are.
The power law distributions at even the best venture capital funds demonstrate just how difficult it is to identify founders who are going to succeed, even when trying to do so is your full-time job.
One of the problems is that most organizations want their process to "Do It All." They want it to be development for the employee while also being the primary determinant of administrative decisions. Further, they want it to support all administrative decisions: who's great at their current job, who is most capable of succeeding in their next job (i.e., who should we promote?), how should we distribute our pay raises, what do we do with this year's STI and LTI, etc.
It's broken, and expensive. Maybe it can't truly be fixed, but at least we can save some money, time, and frustration. That doesn't mean nobody gets feedback, or that we don't set and track goals. But it doesn't have to be the way we make it. If we put half as much effort into making managers better at leading people I have no doubt the impact would be much more clear.
I was a manager through a few performance review cycles before I went back to engineering. This is the first instance I've ever seen where the performance review gathered information that was actually germane to the outcome.
Managers have incentives to inflate appraisals...
Absolutely. My salary budget was incremented in the same way as our salaries are, by getting the biggest raises possible. I was competing with other managers for a piece of a fixed pot of money for these raises, and every manager knew what was at stake.
color me surprised.
this has been know for a while by now: if you try to put down hard metrics for creative jobs they just backfire.
also managers using reviews to favor their protege and as favor exchange across other managers to partition their resources shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone having worked with humans.
If you want actual control of the error, and to know how many samples you need, you need to do some arithmetic with the central limit theorem or hoeffdings inequality.
They are afforded terrible powers to intervene in, and disrupt, someone's life. That trade is made under the assumption that they do a dangerous job.
A benefit is afforded to them due to the responsibility that they bear.
Obviously, they want to have as much power with as little danger as possible. They want to maximize the benefit the receive (largely being above the law and a middle class existence) and minimize the repercussions of what they owe for it (possibly being in danger).
Its the same in other areas of American life where elites have abdicated their responsibilities but have become accustomed to the benefits afforded them to the point that they think it's owed to them. That has to change.
EDIT: for clarification and spelling.
That is dereliction of a police officer's duty. The entire purpose of a police force is to investigate potential crimes, and then, if it is determined that a crime has occurred, to arrest those involved. This man, a shift commander, is literally saying that their policy is to shoot first and ask questions later. He should, at a minimum, be fired. Additionally, if he has actually structured his department in a way that has officers arresting people without prior investigation, he and all others carrying out this policy should be criminally prosecuted for false imprisonment.
That's nuts. At least they haven't gone that crazy in Norway - the police instruction on firearms are still: "Only aim at someone you're authorized to kill" -- eg: someone posing an immediate threat that can't be avoided by de-escalating the situation (so it's not enough for someone to threaten to kill a police officer, if that officer can easily back away and secure the area/wait for backup -- but more along the lines of someone aiming a gun at someone).
And this makes more sense to me too: Everyone is entitled to self-defense if they fear for their life -- if someone threaten you with a deadly weapon -- be that a knife or a gun, it's entirely rational to try and kill them in order to save yourself. You might of course serve out the rest of your life in prison if you make the wrong call -- but you'll be alive.
Just because someone is a cop, doesn't mean they can't be(come) a murderer. This is why it's so important for police to practice restraint. They work for us, not against us after all (or should, anyway).
On the way back at night, driving through a small town in central Massachusetts, I passed a cop car, going at the speed limit. The cop immediately pulled out and began tailing me, but did not turn on his lights.
I tried to maintain a constant speed, a couple miles above the 35 mile per hour speed limit, since I know cops treat excessively slow speeds as an indicator of drunk driving.
Eventually, after 15 minutes of being tailed, I hit my foot a bit too heavily on the gas, and went to 45 miles per hour. He instantly turned on his lights, and pulled me over.
The officer was extremely skeptical when he got to the car, especially since the name on the car's registration was my company's, not mine, and I had two minors in the back. After some questioning and prodding about where we had been and what we had been doing, he let me go with a warning.
I shudder to think what would have happened if I had pulled over in the same situation, but black. The officer was serving no sort of duty except to troll for problems where none existed.
I haven't returned to the US since: it turns out there are many places I can live where I don't have to have nerve-wracking interactions with hostile law enforcement, ever.
When a man's job depends on him apprehending suspects, then he will find a way to create more suspects for which to apprehend.
The bigger problem is that the policies & incentives are built to reinforce this. They get promotions/assets based on forfeiture laws, weapons based on Pentagon Surplus & publicity based on Shootouts. No one ever got promoted for not shooting a (potentially innocent) suspect. Very very rarely does a cop get prosecuted for pulling a gun or inflicting other violence.
SO put a bunch of arrogant, power seeking people in a system which glorifies violence & rewards forfeitures. What else do you expect?
The citizens here are to blame. The police are just giving the public what it wants. It's a county full of McMansions and extreme paranoia. Lots of upper middle class people terrified that their fragile existence might be upset by [Mexican immigration, terrorism, <insert fear here>]. I'm not sure if 9/11 was a turning point per se, but planes crashing into the Pentagon in neighboring Arlington didn't help.
It wasn't always like this. When I was growing up you'd almost never see a Fairfax County cop. Vienna was always a police state, but the small-bit speed-trap kind. Today, there are cops crawling around Tysons (where the biggest danger is rowdy teenagers).
 It's notable that this story takes place just across the Potomac from where those parents got in trouble with the police for letting their kids walk home less than a mile from school.
I think that sums it up well. Many police officers do indeed act like they don't understand the risks or even purpose of their own jobs. Policing has become an end in and of itself. It's no longer about protecting and serving but about policing and arresting and jailing. It doesn't matter if there is no crime, people will be arrested. It doesn't matter if there is serious crime, low-level offenders will be the primary target. And of course, nothing is more important than officer safety. These officers are cowards who should be ashamed of themselves. They don't have an altruistic bone in their body and probably wouldn't lift a finger to save a baby out of a burning building. It is the citizens' lives that matter, that the police are sworn to protect. It is the citizens they serve. But that indeed has been lost.
Given all this, is it any wonder that much of the population no longer trusts police, many from negative personal experiences? The author is right. Until there is a huge shift in the way police treat citizens, this problem of trust will get worse. For many, it is a problem of hate, and in many cases, rightly so.
Yet the police and many other people insist that the change has to come from citizens. If only we give up our guns. If only we give up our freedoms. These things just make the problem worse by blaming the victims and forcing the citizens to give up even more for the well being of the police.
There is no movement from the pro police camp, and it's been their turn for decades now. Until there is, hate and animosity from the community will continue to grow.
This seems like the thing police forces need to change in order to fix the situation.
The same was clearly true in the United States' early approach to counter-insurgency in Iraq, as described in this piece, where the life of an American soldier is clearly much more valuable to the US Government than those of the Iraqi civilians we went to 'save'.
The sad thing is the comparison I would always quote was "what would the police do in the United States, if you had a dangerous criminal surrounded by civilians?" They probably wouldn't use an airstrike, they would probably use some other technique with a higher risk to the police, but a lower risk to the civilians they are sworn to 'protect and serve'
This article (and lots of other data) suggests that is changing: if everyone is a suspect until proven innocent, there is no need for police restraint. The worse that can happen is a dead 'perp' I guess...
In Switzerland every male has a military type machine gun and two magazines at home and in my country, Austria, there are regions that rival Texas in terms of gun ownership.
Today I tend to believe that this might be a problem of city planning (and preventing ghettos). The US has cities that are much larger than the largest cities in the countries cited by me. But I might be wrong here.
Anyways, I do not doubt that police in Austria and Germany would act no differently than in the US if they had reason to expect that they could be shot every time they stopped a car. Thankfully this is not the case.
I'm not sure this is true. If it were, why would they put themselves into potentially violent situations? It seems to me the priorities are
1. Make the arrest.2. Officer safety.3. Public safety.4. Justice.
In that order. They are related, to get 4 you sometimes need 1-3. But not always.
'Militarised police' is correct, because this corresponds exactly to what we'd want of our warfighters.
1. Carry out the mission.2. Be safe.3. Keep 3rd parties safe.4. Be ethical and moral.
It's a far cry from 'to protect and serve'. Personally I'd be happy with a squatter in an empty apartment getting away more often in return for not deploying an armed raid with no confirmation based on a single report.
Or do they just get even more set into the us vs. them and we know what's better for the dumb masses mindset?
I would love to hear an actual cop's opinion on how the recent media coverage has affected his/her individual performance and the overall performance of the police force in general.
Which we hear about all the time. So WTF?
In any event, why would a squatter merit such a hostile response?
For Violent Crime in 2011, it ranked 46th of the 50 states. Property Crime was 43rd.
The Federal & State Incarceration Rate was 13th, and general funds spending on corrections (2008), it was ranked 11th highest.
Sometimes Europeans are alarmed by the high US incarceration rates, with our 700-800 per 100,000 over twice most other countries. If you want your eyes to just pop out of your head though look at the state by state numbers. (The US is a big place, and all social trends are not perfectly distributed.) Louisiana incarcerates over 1400 of its 100,000, four to fourteen times most other countries. The one thing you can say for Louisiana, though, is that it also has over double the national murder rate. So maybe it has other endemic problems that are running both numbers up simultaneously.
Virginia's up there in incarceration with 900-1000 per 100k, but it doesn't have the violent crime stats that could even attempt to excuse it. It has below average homicide and violent crime rates.
It's a high incarceration state for no damn reason.
The officer involved shootings of unarmed people are consistently swept under the rug.
"In a very real sense, the 'middle class' is not an economic category, it's a social one. To be middle class is to feel that the fundamental institutional structures of society are, or should be, on your side. If you see a policeman and you feel more safe, rather than less, then you can be pretty sure you're middle class. Yet for the first time since polling began, most Americans in 2012 indicated they do not, in fact, consider themselves middle class."http://gawker.com/ferguson-and-the-criminalization-of-americ...
The author still argues in favor of policing. (Just like he doesn't question whether he had any right to invade another country.) Advocating that police return to his side, against the common domestic enemy.
P.S. If they had raised a sudden firefight, where might some of the resulting rounds traveled and impacted, particularly in what might be a fairly population-dense apartment building(s) setting?
A first step is freedom of the press so that citizens can become informed.
A second step is for problems to beexposed in the press as in the OP.
A third step is for citizens in thearea with such problems to informtheir elected officials that the policeneed better supervision to solve the problems.
Fourth, with enough concern from votingcitizens, the political supervisionof the police needs to tell the policechief, etc. to clean up their act.
If problems continue, then the mayor,etc. needs to get the Chief of Policea new job, say, cleaning the sidewalkswith a toothbrush -- "Get'm nice andclean, now, y'hear. Good to see youdoing well at the work you are bestsuited for.".
With more concern, lawyers, includingthe local prosecutors, can bring legalcases against the police. As inBaltimore now, a few serious legalcases against the police can calm down the whole police force like a fewmillion pills of Valium.
Net, via our democracy, the power,essentially all of the power, reallyoverwhelming power, is fully in thehands of the voting citizens. Allcitizens have to do is find a sympathetic candidate and pull a leverin a voting booth.
With any kind of serious activityby voting citizens, police arrogancecan disappear like a snowball in a hot July in Vegas.
The police need to be worried now:Somewhere in the US is a billionairewho believes in the US Constitutionand is ready to spend a little moneyto set up police sting operations,have hidden cameras recording everything,make a really big public story about theabuses, have teams of lawyersfilling the court dockets with everylegal case they can come up with,and then organizing some politicalactivity to get the politicians onboard.
The story for the police? Simple:Clean up your act on your own or the voters,politicians, and lawyers will do itfor you.
Too much of the police have talked tothemselves too much and talked themselvesinto believing a lot of nonsense reasonswhy they should treat the citizens likedirt. Well, that treatment and thosereasons won't cut it, not for even a minute,once the sunlight shines on the situation --instead, voters, politicians, and lawyershave the power, overwhelming power, and will stop the nonsense.
I can understand the reasons (in most cases it seems to be vanity), but it would often be best to just give access and clearly mark it 'work in progress'. Open source miracles may happen.
Of course in concurrent programming, data races can happen within these function applications as well. I can't think of a good way right now to visualize execution within in a function.
It would be nice if that could be visualized here :)
Chisel is pretty well-known in academic, hardware community. So, here's a few that you might have not heard of.
Caisson - language-based security meets HDLhttp://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~chong/papers/109-Caisson-pldi.pdf
SHard - a scheme to hardware compilerhttp://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/05-saint-mleux.pdf
Cx-Lang - A statically-typed, c-like, HLL for hardwarehttp://cx-lang.org/
Note: I'd love for some people familiar with ASIC or FPGA design to check out Cx-Lang to see if it's good for beginners getting results on FPGA's. The I.P. they sell is so cheap that it's either (a) crap or (b) the result of a productive, synthesis tool (Cx). Just like to know if it's a decent HLS tool compared to FPGA or EDA company offerings. Additional advantage that it's open so it can be reviewed for subversion if one is willing to invest the effort.
For example can you design a generic processor in such a way that everything will be parameterized?
Mr Gall wrote a book about complex systems and how they fail back in the 70's and most of it (from what I recall it's been a while since I read it) applies as much now as it did then, it's a very good read.
Dealing with complexity by reducing or ommiting some problems are vital also for small and medium projects. This encouranges rapid creation of some working prototype and the overall process tends to shift towards more iterative development.
I strongly feel that "garbage collection" is grossly neglected in almost every organization and is part of the reason firms slow down as they grow older.
The article mentioned simplification of the Norwegian tax code. Are there governments with garbage collection and simplification of laws built into the legislative process?
This is one of the ideas behind building a Minimum Viable Product, and think it's a big strength that startups have. The product doesn't do everything. People will adapt to the product, and start using it in new and unexpected ways. And it's a lot cheaper and easier to build.
I'm curious if there are examples of large companies successfully simplifying existing products. How many features could gmail take away before they alienate too many of their users? Quickbooks, Microsoft office (the ribbon?), or any of the Adobe products?
Is this a good use case for a document store, NoSQL database?
Hopefully nobody disturbs her and her young.
Didn't expect to get on the front page. Just want to make sure we clarify what the intent was here.
A lot of people on our user group have been asking us about predicting continuous values in neural networks. This page rose out of the need of explaining that a neural network itself is a universal approximator that solves for different objectives/loss functions.
Two instantiations of that problem are regression and classification only changing w.r.t the activation function and objective function.
Happy to clarify/update anything.
I only wish they'd come with more RAM, or at least some way to upgrade the RAM .. I'm pretty spoiled with the 32gigs of RAM I've become accustomed to in my workstations, alas.
Anyone know of a multi-core ARM-based system with decent performance and 8 - 16gigs of RAM possibility? I'd love to have such a machine to hack with ..
One option would be to require all companies to publish employees salaries. Would this requirement be more or less onerous than other options?
One argument is that it hurts businesses - but if every business is required to do it, then it is an even playing field. Obviously that cannot happen in an international business setting - so would it put the countries that implement it at a disadvantage, or would the economic gains outweigh the decrease in competitiveness?
In short asymmetric data on employee wages (company knows all salaries, employee knows just one) leads to inefficent outcomes
Even shorter - everyone's salary and pay should be published - that will fix pikkety's problem
Even even shorter - how the hell do you measure performance?