metacorrector

no, what you describe is not an argument against EMH; not defending the poster, I have no idea if the poster understands this, but your critique is faulty and is explained by standard finance theory.

When there is an accident, injured parties go after rich people, like the expression "deep pockets", and juries aren't sympathetic to them. Rich people are advised to get (and can afford) insurance more than middle class people.

i just want to add, you have actually introduced a bug. if your program has any longevity, this misfeature of it will, i predict with confidence, break the program at some point, sooner rather than later, and for no reason other than "it's a hack".

yuk. this is the sort of issue that should be solved at the level of the OS, not for every app.

*nix is pretty much "the" cmdline people refer to, and the unix cmdline was well established and in use at microsoft when microsoft created DOS and broke it to shit. No reason to retrofit the breakage backward.

plenty of unix tools don't say anything when you run them with no args, and they're not supposed to, "we" like it that way.

If you have a GUI that can't handle cmdline executables, how about distinguish GUI executables from cmdliners. don't foul the cmdline space with cruft, cruft that works in one context but not in many others. You are explicitly testing to see if you are a descendent of a specific program?

and when they do apply pressure on Airbus from their side of the cockpit, they can't tell if countervailing pressure is being applied from the other side?

It wasn't infidelity that was the problem, it was honest emotions.

Because US citizens need somebody from Google's business model and school of thought fighting for us on the inside and helping the gov't formulate our data and privacy policies?

that little voice in your head that is screaming "i hate this" is your problem. It really is not a big deal to type a password, and even to type it a few times, just try to have a more zen attitude about it. It's how passwords work, stop trying to figure out how to defeat your own password, it's doing what it's supposed to do.

YCombinator is all tied up with VCs and incubators and such, right? In other contexts such as applying for various types of placements, are people's comment histories reviewed (including whatever amount of doxing is possible via server logs etc) to weed out "bad eggs"?

Cuz, I sure wouldn't hire anybody on here who is condoning or defending in any way cheating in school, even in the most oblique way.

First, to give you the answer, in your position you need to exchange your knight for his, and after he takes back with his queen, attack his queen with your bishop, which seems to offers your bishop as a sacrifice, but it's poison for him.

I agree with you. I don't want to take anything away from the terrific amount of work that went into this, it's a great achievement... but it needs to have a richer set of choices for the learner, and it would be nice if it could explain more exactly what was wrong with each of your erroneous choices, and perhaps provide a more directed set of hints that laid out what you should be looking at by explaining weaknesses in the position or "obvious" signs of opportunity, rather than demanding a very specific single course of action. Why all the alternative moves are weaker is as useful as why the good moves work. What might work is if the site had a "wiki" style of notation adding, so a richer database of explanations could be crowdsourced.

Back to the problem, if it's of any help to you, I came up with the answer by noting that I need to move my knight out of the way to get my black bishop active and onto those juicy squares defended by my pawns, and to get my white bishop out of the way to open the file for my linked up queen and rook, and also that his queen is threatening my undefended pawn so I looked to get my bishop onto that diagonal as a defender.

This position is a good example of a number of core concepts, for example that the bishops because they are on diagonals coordinate a little better with the other pieces when they are on the flanks of the attack rather than in the middle where they can clog, and that the rooks and queen benefit from open files, and that knights are useful when the position is somewhat clogged but frequently they should be exchanged for a more advantageous opening of the position. But the pedagogy here does not teach that.

I am a decent (but very rusty) chess player, but what I am good at is a little more "holistic", I play by developing my position in more or less sensible ways and then exploiting opportunities when they arise; but a lot of that is somewhat unconcious thought learned from a great deal of play, and "understanding" my position for me comes from being the one who developed it. In contrast, it is hard for me to jump in and look at a developed position and find the magic in it which is what this style of teaching requires. Probably a good set of things for me to work on, but at the same time the chess rating it gives me is absurd because I play at a much higher level than 1200 but I have tremendous difficulty getting my score to climb. I mention this because even though you and I come at this from different places, my complaint about the site is the same as yours: it's demanding a very specific set of moves and it's not really explaining or guiding as much as it needs to. Sometimes I pick the right move and it says "congrats! let's move on" and I'm thinking I have no idea what was so great about what I chose, the move seemed sensible but not stunning.

Now, I may be not the typical user (as an experienced, highly intuitive player with voids where big chunks of my skills are lacking, so the system should not be redesigned for me) but I mention it because while I can rely on some of my developed talents to solve these problems, I don't feel that this would teach those talents that I do have, and they would be very useful for learners to develop.

yeah but... the real problem lies elsewhere...

VMware (and that style of virtualization) is so popular because of the utter failure of OSes to do what they are supposed to do.

Protected multiuser multitasking operating systems are supposed to be able to protect processes from impinging on one another, and they can't do it. The result is that on a very large scale we have datacenters that spawn VMware virtual machine after VMware virtual machine, a "make everything look like a nail so we can use this hammer" approach that is wasting huge amounts of resources.

There would still be a use for VMware if OSes worked, but nothing like we see today. People should get back to work on fixing OSes so a cloud host could actually run processes from different customers in a lightweight way and have them not screw each other up.

the scientific method includes independent confirmation of results, so duplicating others' work is actually learning and understanding the scientific process. publication on the other hand...

I don't think (as I said) the guy was intending to chase around the world protecting his copyrights, he was trying to show the absurdity of the definitions that copyright law depends on, and in that sense what he did refuted a priori your comment.

You use the term "act of creation" as if he didn't engage in it. Not sure how you can claim that he didn't create the melodies, he did, doesn't matter that he didn't ever hear them, neither did Beethoven (you get my point). If he had any musical training he could credibly state that he was creating a Philip Glass style composition exploring the space of melodies blah blah blah. You don't think a skilled musician could characterize and categorize the different elements of this work? If he was serious about it, he could call it his ring cycle and start playing it, all the way through, a one hour performance a week.

And then I pointed out, and you ignored, that even if he didn't go out and claim copyright infringement, there is still the point that he insulated himself in a certain way from infringement claims from others.

I think he made an interesting philosophical point, I think you should chew on it in a more interesting way. In a case of an actual claim of infringement, he created lawyer fodder that could drag through courts for years, had he been a musician.

No, I don't think he overturned copyright law. To a large extent, judges make decisions based on practicalities more than they do on the letter of the law. The letter of the law comes up when there are colliding practicalities, and ambiguity in the law. Still, I think it's a more interesting thought exercise than you are giving it credit for.

mp4 actually tells you more about a file than mpeg4 does, because mp4 is only one thing, the file. mpeg4 is another thing, but that thing is not a file. So, calling files mpeg4 actually confuses things rather than clarifies them. If you work with these concepts, it's nice to be able to say to your coworker, "hey, send me the mp4". if you say "send me the mpeg4", you'll get back "how do you want me to send it?"

This works for many similar concepts. The idea of not overloading words that already have meanings with other meanings was one of the sensible underpinnings of the Hungarian Naming Convention. Let's not rehash the Hungarian debate, you don't need to like Hungarian to realize the sensibleness of this particular concept.

I just can't sympathize, at all. I would prefer (I realize this is not the law) an internet that was considered public domain. If you don't want you picture copied, don't put it in the public domain.

I do understand hard work, and skill, and putting in the time that made you the great photographer that you are, and I understand the need to earn a living, and I understand capitalism, economic profits, and accounting profits and economic profits.

But a large number of highly trained and skilled people put a lot of hard work and effort into writing the open source software that is running the internet and the webservers that your images are on.

I understand your perspective: you'd rather buy a proprietary microsoft operating system and a proprietary microsoft webserver so you could run a proprietary Oracle database to keep track of your DRMed photos.

But understand that I wouldn't, I'd rather have a public domain web where photographers share their work like artists do and computer programmers and graphic designers and bloggers and everybody else.

I'm just not that excited by your great photo, there are a lot of great photos.

full disclosure: I took a significant news photo once and made money selling it. I enjoyed spending the money. I don't chase around the internet stopping people from duplicating it.

There was a project in the early days of the internet boom, a website was put up (in australia IIRC) with every possible melody combination (using discrete scales) along with a copyright notice for each one, so nobody would be able to write a song in the future without infringing.

even if there was no creativity involved and thus the copyright would fail, it seems (IANAL) that it might put the melodies into the public domain, since how could somebody claim you had no right to use a melody that you had already published?

my explanation was correct, "common" (but not secret) means that both parties have it (each party also has a secret) and that is the key element to understand what is good about the protocol and what problems it solves. By seeming to correct me, you are actually confusing the people I just explained it to. You can if you wish go ahead and explain what limitations this puts on the protocol, but try to help people understand rather than just throwing confetti in the air.

the common color can be public, there is no point in manipulating it. Anybody manipulating it will not be using the common color any more.

if you are saying that you plan to trust the MITM to give you the common color, then it's not a common color, it's not something you have in common with the party you wish to perform a key exchange with.

or to put it another way, notice that the protocol does not start out with "exchange a common color"

they are talking about people who would pay money to avoid the very same shocks. So, let's extend your thought, doesn't sound terribly unpleasant? nor does being alone with your thoughts sound terribly unpleasant. But they measured the two and discovered that being alone with your thoughts is MORE unpleasant.

your insight that various aspects of the experiment make a difference can be a valuable tool in order to go look deeper into the experiment, but you didn't do that. I'm saying apply a little of the rigor you are demanding to your own argument.

We can judge people on life performance, nobody has any problem with that.

Why do you want the word for successful life performace to be intelligence?

or to put it another way, the article you are responding to is making that point that high IQ people aren't always successful for some reasons. How is the point the author is making enhanced by changing the definitions? if intelligence means that your company will be successful, how will the OP write his article to make his point, because his point would still apply. Are you proposing another word?

the study hinges on whether the researchers who worked on it, designing it and completing many trials over time, writing it up and getting it published, on whether they thought of something that you just thought of? that the unpleasant shock had to be unpleasant?

REALLY? you really think they missed that?

Can't we agree? with redefining what intelligent means on the basis of your reasonably well written discussion post? NO, we can't agree on that at all.

Your post is thoughtful and well meaning, but intelligence means... well I'm not an expert at defining it (I know my limitations, learn from me), but the people who are experts at it have devised tests for measuring it, and it's extremely well documented, and measurable, and if you have it you score high on IQ tests, and if you don't you don't.

I have it. It's been measured. And I know it when I see it in other people, and always have, even before it was measured. If we sat down to play a new board game that neither of us had seen before, I'd most likely learn it quicker and start kicking your ass sooner.

Does that guarantee success in my life? no. Does it give me some potential? yes. For some of reasons that you give. You wrote a good post. Just don't try to redefine the word intelligence just so it can be a compliment paid to a different set of people. And while we are at it, can we stop saying that people are beautiful on the inside? "Beauty is only skin deep" is an expression because that's what the word means.

Yes, I'm aware that it is in the nature of language that words evolve and humans like extending the meanings of words and making analogies and metaphors, and that it can have perfectly understandable meaning to say that people with "emotional intelligence are beautiful on the inside", but that doesn't redefine the words nor rename the concepts.

/rant

i don't know exactly how this site works, and i'm not going to research it, but did you actually get downvoted for writing something mildly insightful/humorous?

Ironically, Burning Man prior to 1996 didn't make me want to shoot guns; now if they allowed me to carry, I don't think I could carry enough.

how about wikipedia allows multiple style sheets and lets us each choose what we like. One size does not fit all.

good grief, yes, smart people can be arrogant, yes, smart people can be many other negative things.

but my experience walking around the world is that most people are too stupid. Too stupid means, for instance, that they could never begin to fathom programming a computer in C or C++. So pursuing that narrow example (doesn't mean that you can't choose quantum physics instead, if you are distracted by that re-read what I said) and restricting ourselves to the population of people who can fathom programming in C and C++: again, my experience of them is that even they are mostly too stupid to do a good job of it, these are difficult and dangerous languages, and we as a society do not have enough people who can actually use them safely.

So, from where I'm sitting, the arrogance of the world is not concentrated among the small numbers of truly exceptionally smart people, the arrogance is mostly found among all the other people--as we see in this discussion--who focus all their criticism on smart people.

Yes, we smart people are arrogant, but we are not stupid, so shut up in order for you to get what you can from us, and do not wish that we could somehow be more like you because that would entail us being more stupid. Don't be insulted; just as I am not insulted that you can't see what I can see, I'm simply saying stop complaining about this, it goes with the territory. Do you complain that the brilliant brain surgeon who saved your life is also very arrogant, or do you kiss his ass for saving your life? Would you trade the pleasure of watching Michael Jordan play basketball away because you don't like the arrogant way he acts off court? No, you wouldn't.

Yes, there can be super smart people who are also super humble, but so what? there can also be super smart people who are not humble, just as there can also be super humble people who are not very smart, and the worst of all, arrogance that is not accompanied by extreme skill, which is what I am complaining about. It is arrogant of all of you (no, not you personally, just look down the discussion) to all jump into the same discussion on the same side--ooh arrogance is bad--as if what you are saying is interesting. And this is not a topic of great interest to me, I'm simply trying to represent my side since I didn't see it represented anywhere else here.