Again, I'm not saying he's a fraud. He probably still put up a decent chunk himself. He did take out a mortgage on his house, but it doesn't mean that he put 100% of the value of his house towards this crisis. All I'm saying is don't get caught up in all the sensationalism.
With the agencies involved dragging their feet, was there no other way to get someone else involved? Is there a whistleblower fund like the SEC has: https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower that gives them a portion of the impact they had (10-30% for amounts over $1 MM in the SEC's case)?
Anyone have a link of the said email dump? Other links are broken
That is the cockroach that needs the light shown upon them.
follow the money.
They are probably costing $1 Million per week now in bottled water.
Imagine what the special needs kids caused by this will cost taxpayers for the next several decades.
Even without the lead leeching issues, everyone knows the Flint river was an industrial dumping ground for decades and was very toxic - no amount of filtering would have made it safe for constant consumption.
In the world we live in, people only invest in themselves and society may or may not benefit as a consequence. This type of selflessness is rare and unsustainable.
My guess is many former industrial regions in the US will have heavily contaminated water.
It is extremely misleading and deceptive here to say that the professor spent $147,000 because he did not spend $147,000 at all. He spent 11200+3180+50 = $14,430 and he received 32843+200+500+200 = $33,743 in grants and fees he charged for speaking, for a surplus of $19,313.
Furthermore, the money being raised is going into an account supervised by the lead. It is not being used to pay the people who did the work for their time. This is especially outrageous that he is collecting money for their volunteer work and keeping it for his own use.
Imagine if the government said "hey, that money in your bank account, we can just automatically take our taxes from it, because we're not really taking it from you, we're just taking it from the bank." Probably not the most accurate analogy, but I think you see where I'm going with this.
Since the ruling that invalidated Safe Harbor, Microsoft has been pushing for laws and agreements between nations that say law enforcement shouldn't be coming to Microsoft (as a cloud service provider) with a warrant for data requests, but to their corporate customers. So for instance, if FastMail uses the Azure cloud service, they're saying that if the government wants access to a user's data, they shouldn't be going to Microsoft but to FastMail with the warrant.
It's a small improvement, but Microsoft and all of the other companies should be pushing so this works for all of their customers, not just the corporate ones. It's exactly the same principle, but Microsoft just takes the easier way out here, because that still gets them off the hook, and it's really what they care most about. The corporations (even if they are "people") shouldn't be having more rights than actual people.
(1) The NSA is there to protect us, in theory.
(2) There will never, ever be guaranteed privacy or security as long as you continue to use other people's equipment and network. Using the internet expecting privacy is like continually saying, "I'm going to have sex with everyone and going to complain about the people that have STD's."
You could try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network
Those are a little safer.
It's not clear to me why light therapy is considered as a well-researched treatment.
This is a perfectly usable (and subjectively bright) LED strip, but beware, the specified lumens are a lie. My power meter reports a draw of 33W and another reviewer reports ~38.6W. The maximum efficiency of a 5730 SMD LED is ~110 lumens/watt, so this strip is outputting at most ~3630 lumens. Seller's description of "45-50LM" per LED would lead you to believe this can output 15000 lumens or ~454 lumens/watt. This is far outside the world record 200 lumens/watt bulbs and even outside the theoretical physical limit of 250370 lm/W.
My current solution is to take a 1 hour walk outside every day around noon. Also, I've stopped sitting in front of my computer or TV 3 hours within bedtime. Instead I usually spend my late evenings reading paper books.
This has solved the longer-than-24-hour-cycles and most of the SAD (it also seems to have completely cleared up my acne). However, on days when it's overcast and kinda dark, I still notice some SAD. On those dark days, the kind of lamp that he built probably would have been nice.
Stage lighting fixtures use the halogen metal iodide bulbs that he salivates over at the end, and already solve all of the issues he outlined. They provide their own ballasts, are metal shielded, use a lens that acts as a UV shield, have built-in cooling.
In fact the only issues with stage lighting:
1) The cooling wasn't designed to be silent (it isn't expected to be near someone in a near-silent environment)
2) The lamp casing wasn't designed to be near anything flammable (they get very hot)
3) The lens and casing is designed to throw the beam in a very small angle of spread over a reasonably long distance (they're not designed to point at your face from a few feet)
But given that, it seems reasonable that one could put it farther away and reflect it into the space you want lit.
And if he really wanted to go crazy whilst staying with LEDs, then he could just get a few of these: http://pulsarlight.com/products/chroma-range/chromaflood200/ which are used in architectural lighting and each one produces 10k lumens, and they are safe for indoor and outdoor use, are waterproof, and can be driven from standard mains power.
Ideally your ceiling would be very high for this setup to give space for the light to diffuse from hanging ceiling reflectors, which is unfortunately not the case for most homes. For realistic homes, there is a style of floor lamp termed 'torchiere' that may work, though for best results you're going to want to find one with a large, fully reflective shroud - lights this bright are pretty harsh if they're not diffused well.
Set up something like this on an automatic timer to simulate the sky, and I suspect a lot of our sleep issues would go away fairly quickly.
I live at a similar latitude (except in the Southern Hemisphere) and have never considered that it would be a thing outside of essentially polar latitudes.
Over the past couple of winters (I moved further south a few years back) I've had some atrocious winters in terms of mental space. Maybe this is something I should look into.
That said, this seems to be right to me, but I could well believe there are people who need 30,000 lumens and therefore have to get more creative.
Yeah, I know, tanning beds are imported directly from Hell to give us skin cancer and stuff. But a sunny day in LA or Barcelona summer will give you much more UV than that. And it really helps with the aforementioned SAD.
I live at 59N 18E so the opposite hemisphere would mean I currently would have daylight between 02:29 and 19:31. While 0, 0 gives you roughly 06:00 - 18:00.
Can someone recommend a ready-made solution?
The OA does not specify the latitude at which he(? assuming the OA is the site owner's work) is living.
However, while optional typing gives you some benefits over purely dynamic typing, the fact that it's all bolted-on causes a variety of problems. First, there's the fact that you'll have code with types interact with code without them. This eventually causes more trouble than it solves.
IMO, the biggest issue though is that what we really see from most of these systems is to add optional type systems that are comparable to very simple type systems, like Java's. But those strongly typed systems are not really that powerful! The real power of static typing doesn't come from being able to make sure we don't mix strings and integers, but in doing type checking for much more complex abstractions. Type systems like Scala's, or Haskell's. Creating an optional typing linter that looks at that high a level, and doesn't cause much of pain, is not something I've ever seen. Type inference with generics, existential types, higher kinded types, algebraic types. That's where the real value is, and where modern typed languages are.
Aiming optional typing at where typed languages were 20 years ago is not going to help bridge the gap. If anything, I think it makes it wider, because then fans of dynamic languages think they understand the position of proponents of type systems when, in fact, they are looking at a strawman from the past.
; (> SECRET GUESS) ; ; caught WARNING: ; Derived type of GUESS is ; (VALUES STRING &OPTIONAL), ; conflicting with its asserted type ; REAL. ; See also: ; The SBCL Manual, Node "Handling of Types" ; ; compilation unit finished ; caught 1 WARNING condition ; printed 8 notes
Without types, it's impossible for tools to refactor your code safely without the supervision of a human. This leads to developers being afraid of refactoring and, ultimately, code bases rot and become huge piles of spaghetti that nobody wants to touch.
With a statically typed language, I'm never afraid to refactor whenever I see an opportunity to do so.
PHP has a (unfortunately quite limited) set of type annotations, but the interpreter actually enforces them.
Has anyone ever gotten paid to add annotations to code that works?
Personally, I view type systems as like a safety line when doing work on a roof, and optional typing as having a line that might or might not be tied off.
It seems like a generator like @Signature(...input types, output type) would solve this problem with limited language changes, and would work in python 2/3?
This topic has been knocked around in Ruby-land for a while; I remember seeing Michael Edgar's LASER (https://github.com/michaeledgar/laser) static analysis tool including some work around optional type annotations, but seems like development there has stopped.
Because it doesn't appear to actually do anything. It's a joke to call this 'static typing'.
The real benefit I'd be looking for is the chance to give the compiler hints to speed up execution times.
The problem in Ruby is nils, and you'd have the same problem with the same solution in a static language; creation of a duck type. You can't get away from duck types, whether it's a maybe type or whether you perform nil-checking at the earliest possible opportunity. You learn with time and experience how to deal with inconsistent data. Ruby gives me the flexibility to do it without a lot of boilerplate.
That or some pretty hilariously heavy-handed state-sponsored hijacking.
Handy tool though, bookmarked it - using the event graph to display route changes as detected over time is a great visualization - would be really cool if there was the same event graph covering the entire internet (though I suspect without some cleverness in both design and implementation, the quantity of data would be prohibitively large for building a useful visualization).
These are often the result of mistakes. Even if OMZ were a tier 1 provider in RU, the impact would still be limited - I can't see how this could be intentional.
Ok, so if OMZ is Russian, do know this:
Russia currently is 'blocking' several websites. I.e. blocking at a DNS level, so this might be half witted attempt on keeping the censorship..
And as @swiley noted: some people only use the easier to remember 126.96.36.199 (I do that for instance)
Assuming your GPU will let you hold onto a previous frame's draw result (of just the particles) and blend it relatively cheaply with the new one, it wouldn't cost very much to implement. One full framebuffer blend should be much, much cheaper than blending the individual dots.
Ubuntu Gnome, AMD open source driver
Why not a png ?
Edit: So after a quick test:
* glyphs.bmp 53.5 MB
* glyphs.png 7.6 MB
I guess it could be shrinked even more.
Doesn't work on iPad - just get blank pages.
It seems like the skeptic community just randomly glommed onto those issues in the 90s or something and haven't updated their worldview since.
Let's jump to Alzheimer, a feared disease with also a lot of research and not so good drugs. Dr Bredesen has made a protocol with 35 variables to cure Alzheimer. And in his first test, he reversed Alzheimer in 9 out of 10 patients. The scientific purists say that there is no double-blind study, so no proof. I am convinced that Dr Bredesen in on the right path, not only because of the results but also because of his reasoning. The treatment has no drug, but a health optimization in all possible ways. And then the body heals itself in 4 months. Please do not comment with "that cannot be true" unless you proof that it cannot be true (I do not belief that you can provide proof).
So the state of current research methods is weak. Medical research only focuses on one variable, one drug, that will cure a disease. The results of this way of doing medical research are VERY disappointing. Trillions are spent and no drugs that cure cancer, AIDS or Alzheimer have been found. Dr Bredesen has chosen a different path and I support him.
For more fun, check out Python's implementation, which uses the remaining bits of the hash instead of linear probing; Robin Hood hashing, that rearranges entries to keep probing chains short; and the security issues caused by easily determined hashing.
As an additional information about already existing execution plan visualisation tools:
Depesz has written the classical PostgreSQL Execution Plan Visualiser years ago.
Of cause it is not so nicely pretty as the one from Tatiyants, but I use it now and then and it became a standard explain visualisation tool for many PostgreSQL users.
The table format from http://explain.depesz.com/ is very useful and one can understand a lot of details about your execution plan without the need to visualise in the form of a graph.
Also the default execution plan visualiser in pgAdmin looks really cool.
The demo at http://tatiyants.com/pev/#/plans works.
Unfortunately it has some glitches.
Hints for using it:
* In psql use \o plan.txt to redirect the output of explain to a file. It will be a long output because you must use EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS, VERBOSE, BUFFERS, FORMAT JSON) and copying it from the terminal won't be fun.
* Remove the first two lines (header) and the last two (footer) leaving only the json data. Remove all the + characters at the end of every line. Suggestion to the author: the tool should handle that.
That said, it works. It really is much clearer than the output of explain in the terminal and as a result I'm googling how to speed up sort now. Thanks.
Something I've wanted in a postgres query plan visualizer is a "timeline" view of the various nodes. Seeing as for each node we get a "start time" and "duration" it seems like it should be possible to draw something a little like a flame graph to see at what points the nodes are doing their work.
For some reason I just cannot parse Postgres' query planner output, so this might help me understand EXPLAINs for the first time. Thanks for sharing!
I personally hope Elixir helps thrust Erlang into ever more success. (But not so much success that it becomes a victim of it...)
It's a great use of Super DuPont imagery, however.
This is some real feedback I've received:
"It sounds like a scam to me. If you want to try to scam people by getting them to click on your fake website, you should have enough common sense not to use the website as your username. Better luck next time!!!!"
"Scamming people on Christmas Eve using someone's else's platform. Tacky."
Jaynes gives an example of an experiment in which a psychic predicts cards, getting n out of m correct. In classical hypothesis testing H0 would be "the psychic got lucky" and H1 is "the psychic has mystic powers". Jaynes first attempts to use Bayesian reasoning to work backward to determine your prior belief in psychics. That is, how much evidence would it take to convince you, compare that to the raw likelihood and what you have is your prior beliefs quantified.
He then points out that he personally would never believe the subject was psychic, this is because there are not just H0 and H1, but H2 "the psychic is deceiving the experimenters", H3 "the experimenters are making an error" , H4 "the experiments are fudging the results", H5 ... Each of these has their own prior.
If your prior for believing in psychics is low enough and your prior for "the experimenters are fraud" is high enough, the more extreme the evidence the more you will be convinced that the experimenters are disreputable con artists, and subsequently the less you will believe the subject is psychic.
This is actually Jaynes' solution to a huge problem with Bayesian reasoning as a form of human reasoning: "If more data should override a bad prior, then why in the 'age of information' does nobody argee on anything!" This example shows, according to Jaynes, that while we can certainly have irrational priors we can still explain human reason in Bayesian terms and still get a situation where two people faced with plentiful information will arrive at contradictory conclusions.
I know this comment won't be accepted very well here on HN, but I think this is one of the reasons most people who don't believe in climate change don't. Science, and the subsequent reporting on it, has been consistently reporting for the past 20 years that climate change is real, and it's worse than we thought. Every few months, there is a new study being widely reported saying that X new evidence is proving that things will be much worse than we thought. If there was a study every once in a while that said X study about climate change was wrong, and we didn't consider Y factor, but climate change still seems to be headed in a dangerous direction, then I think people might be more willing to accept the thesis.
Of course, the paper doesn't suggest that we are wrong when we suspect systemic error, and skeptics of climate change may very well be wrong, but maybe this will help others understand their skepticism.
The New Coke flop is a perfect example of this.
New Coke was the result of the largest marketing / consumer research project ever. The conclusion of this research was to change Coke's formula. Coca-Cola Chairman Roberto Goizueta claimed that the decision was one of the easiest we have ever made. Coca-Cola thought this way for two reasons:
#1 Research was done with a sample of over 200,000 customers.
#2 Coca-Colas researchers triangulated the validity of their data with a mixed-method approach. They used focus groups, various surveys, and individual interviews.
All these data & research did the opposite of what they were supposed to. Their large sample size gave them lots of useless data. Data triangulationwhich was supposed to safe guard themdid the opposite: it convinced them that their useless data, were useful.
Why does this happen?
In an unnatural system, variance is unbounded. As your data set grows, the unbounded variance grows nonlinearly compared to the valid data. As variance increases, deviations grow larger, and happen more frequently. Spurious relationships grow much faster than authentic ones. The noise becomes the signal.
That being said, since 50% of the world's population have this in their gut, I'm starting to get the feeling that modern medicine doesn't have the entire picture with relation to the microbiome and their are making drastic decisions based on half that story.
It seems increasingly likely that the delicate balance of bacteria inside the gut, or more specifically its imbalance, is closely linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases.
The long term consequences of antibiotics, highly processed foods and sugars, alongside the corn phenomenon is not understood and could well be changing is for the worse.
I had a suspicion when I started reading this article that the simplest solution would be to cut meat out of the diet.
It's astounding how many problems are solved medically, environmentally, economically, and of course ethically if we simply stop consuming meat, or at least stop consuming it at such extreme levels!
There are indications, too, that these microbes may affect/control things like depression, bipolar, etc.
We may see some amazing medical breakthroughs in this area in the coming years
Also, not seeing any "revolution" going on.
Anyone care to discuss long term support? How brittle is it with iOS upgrades, for example?
Any Swift examples that I can include in my Swift Weekly page?
But merely converting BTC to cash via ATMs doesn't even sound like laundering to me at all, just conversion. You would still need to explain the cash you've acquired if you intend to buy something with it.
Money laundering itself is not for those in a hurry. To plausibly launder money you need a service business with costs that are rather fixed and customers who can plausibly pay with cash. Then you can have as many "customers" as you like and nobody can really tell how many you really might have had but depending on how you set up the scheme you can report a reasonable income over the months and years, pay the taxes and thus turn the money legally earned.
> The alarm had been raised by banks which had seen large sums of money being deposited before being immediately withdrawn at cashpoints.
Not the smartest individuals here. How did they think they wouldn't get caught? Seems like another anti-bitcoin peace article which ends with the mt gox failure and this gem: "Bitcoins reputation was also damaged when US authorities seized funds as part of an investigation into the online black market Silk Road.". So that means the dollar and euro's reputation are damaged every day when funds are seized as part of 99.9% of criminal investigations?
The fact that they don't mention it makes it sound like they might have been doing something more interesting than just selling drugs, as usually they tend to be fairly public about those cases.
Edit: Guess it was just some drug dealers then,
>All suspects fell into one of two categories criminal traders on the Dark Web and bitcoin-cashers who are paid by these traders to exchange bitcoins for cash
I remember one Reddit thread where they chased some huge amount of BTC which were stolen and ended up losing them in one of these:
As far as I know the thief got away with it.
If by "seized" they mean "stole". Notice how they spin the fact that US authorities were charged and prosecuted for STEALING bitcoins while investigating Silk Road into the fiction that it damaged the reputation of Bitcoin, but not US authorities.
No but seriously - it was a big shock to see my brain in a picture. It is a really weird experience, similar when I saw myself for the first time on film. Maybe this is a normal experience for the current generation, but I hadn't seen myself on film before age 15. You have an image how you move, what you look like, but then you see this on film, and it's a total shocker. All these small movements you make, typical for you, and everybody around you knows them, except for you. So everybody else sees nothing strange when viewing that movie, except you.
I've seen many MRI scans in films and tv series, although I can't remember one since then. From these I have a general picture of what a brain looks like. I've seen plastic 3D brain models. And then I see my brain and it's so different. It's clearly me, no doubt, but still... Totally weird!!!
Mine looks like any brain to me (no tumors, yay!).
From the DTI I was able to calculate the white matter trajectory with slicer: http://screencast.com/t/yDYFJdL7D
(I was a little let down I couldn't follow the visual nerves, but as they cross there is no clear direction of diffusion that could be imaged I guess...)
It seems like that would be the case, but there has been talk about patenting parts of the DNA in the past, and legally sometimes things work in un-expected ways.
(30,380 cases. 187,945 images.)its a teaching/sharing site for radiologists where they can send the data from their PACS.this is the free public site which includes a basic web based dicom viewer to zoom/pan/window level etc
Here's a lot of data from Russ Poldrack, who scanned his brain and collected behavioral and metabolic data from himself very regularly over the course of a year: http://myconnectome.org/wp/data-sharing/
Very useful when I did my undergraduate thesis.
Example on http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LuLV6F-Fp0o/TbcY7BUvpjI/AAAAAAAAAM...
With a usual MRI, unfortunately slices are too far apart to be able to stitch them together like this.
He was maintaining an old mainframe that ran a steel plant and had to modify the boot sequence. Originally the device booted from paper tape but over the years/decades the paper tape had been replaced by a stout piece of leather. So to modify the boot code he had to resort to a hand drill!
By using a hand tool you are purposefully limiting your speed (you may still need to stop in between to let the wood cool).
Hand drilling tools still have their place, the above is just one example of many like it. But for most purposes a motorized tool (electricity, air, gasoline) is more convenient and a lot faster.
Not mentioned are air powered drills. Those tend to be powerful and very small, meaning they work great in tight spaces.
As bushcraft enthusiast/scout located in a Nordic country, this would be ideal. During a week long camp you might not be able to charge your drill. And during the winter Li-ion batteries die. I've been searching for one with three jaw chuck for some years now. (So it would be compatible with modern drill bits.) I've found one geared drill which had four jaw chuck, didn't hold any bit. And some very old and rusty ones that require special bits.
Seriously sell me one. I'd be willing to pay 30e for one, and maybe more.
A drill press is better if you have one available and the workpiece is small enough to fit. I wouldn't choose a hand tool for bigger construction projects if there's a very large number of holes to be drilled or screws to be attached.
Alas, until issued patents actually represent real inventions, then all the rest of the laws surrounding their use and enforcement will appear utterly insane as well.
The trouble with requiring "willfulness" is that it requires proving the state of mind of the infringer. This is difficult, and it's not even clear what "state of mind" means for a corporation. See in re Segate, where the CAFC tried to define "willful infringment" with an objective test.
A stronger remedy than triple damages exists in patent law - an injunction against infringement. Some years ago, Polaroid won an injunction against Kodak for infringing their instant photography patents. Kodak was given 30 days to exit the instant photography business and had to buy all their cameras for that process back from consumers. They did, and that was the end of Kodak's instant photography business. The injunction remedy still exists, but is no longer routinely available since eBay vs. MercExchange. in 2006.
Without patents, there's little incentive to innovate unless you can throw enough money at a startup to get dominant market share before someone else copies you. VCs used to want to see a strong intellectual property position before putting in money; then they had some assurance of not losing their investment even if the technology works. This has been less of an issue for non-technology startups; Doordash, etc. are not technology companies.
The case to which this brief is attached is not about software. It's about a new way to attach transformers to printed circuit boards with surface-mount soldering. Halo, a small startup, developed a way to do this which solved a problem with the solder joints cracking during heating. Pulse, a much bigger company whose transformers tended to crack loose after soldering, copied this and refused to pay royalties. Halo has won the infringement issue; the only remaining question is how much Pulse has to pay them.
 http://www.law360.com/articles/102863/seagate-the-issue-of-w... http://www.bna.com/supreme-courts-ebay-n17179924841/
To me that just sounds stupid. It's akin to the argument that breaking windows promtes growth by stimulating the glass industry.
> Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, Mozilla Corporation, Netflix, Inc., Pinterest, Inc., Roku, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. (Amici) are technology and Internet companies.
I understand why the media ones are together (MPEG, etc.) but I don't understand Checkpoint (LinkedIn as I remembered by writing this purchased Lynda.com, so it cares a lot about serving video). Can anyone explain?
What is that employee to do? If they say something, all of the sudden they 3x the liability their company would face if litigation happens. If they don't say anything, the product will continue to be released and it would increase the chance of the patent owner suing as well.