Re: Ponzi Scheme
Fiat lux seems to be sort of falling apart in the old countries (Europe etc) and gaining in the stranger parts of the rest of the world.
104 posts • joined 29 Jun 2013
I had been sacked and at the tribunal rather than fight it they settled for the maximum legal amount (in those days about £24000) which of course was reduced by the salary that they paid to me in the mandatory "gardening leave".
No particular surprise there. But as the new chief executive had arbitrarily sacked me when re - applying for what was my old job I had a bit of fun.
At the time it was merely sufficient to prove that they had broken the HR rules and should have given me the job automatically.
But two years later when she was coming up to be re-appointed I sued again - in the small claims court of the county court. And claimed that since it had already been agreed that I had been unfairly dismissed then my compensation should have been based on the salary I should have had, not my previous salary.
This lead to the solicitor (poor sod) on their side claiming that you couldn't have two bites at the same cherry. When the judge for the 3rd time explained that he understood and decided the law I felt it was not going well for the poor sod. They settled for a rather larger fee than the original compensation not to set the precedent. And they sacked the chief executive who sacked me. (That was my only non negotiable point (Oh, and giving her a bottle of gin to help her on the way to the gutter)). But to be fair, I paid for the gin myself.
And the point of this, who would have expected English law to be easier to manipulate that that of the US. And having comprehensively fucked on the NHS, it is just a small pity that I never got to do the same to Oracle; nor that is as simple and effective in high cost high pressure law in the land of the free and the slave.
There is a serious problem here, other than the apparent stealing of IP. The clear issue is whether or not the patent issuers are aware of previous work. Most authorities haven't got a (fucking) clue where to look, and even if they did, are not paid to do it and haven't the time. So they functionally can't look for it.
Thus if you discuss your work, and someone appropriates it (after all, it is neither in the public domain(s) that the issuers check) then challenging it is much more difficult than the trivial process of claiming it.
So YOU ARE FUCKED.
But it is so tempting to deal with a huge firm like google. (sort of claiming "first do no harm"). And not all of them have to be lying. Simply a few and the inertia of lawyers and "well it's ours" is sufficient.
(TLDR even if you can trust some of the cunts, there are still cunts there.)
Don't let the Shites happen.
This doesn't answer the question of how to solve the problem; nor am I convinced there is a trivial solution. But the ownership of the problem by the big companies might just help. But that would require the concept of maximalising shareholder return to be constrained by ethical considerations. And we have seen no clear examples of that working. (Failures include Greenhouse gas emission, Asbestos, Slavery, Tobacco, Insurance fraud and all sorts of bullshit.)
I guess you can neither trust companies nor people. And in the long term that is catastrophic for people.
Strange - I thought Edith Cavell was a British citizen, along with many others. I thought that the Germans spies we shot in WW2 and WW1 were German citizens. I must have been mistaken.
Or citizenship does not trump locality and law.
Unless you believe in gunboat diplomacy. (Or Jenkins' ear.)
Well yes - that was the point of the comment. When law simply becomes a purchasable commodity then it is imperative and good science to find the cheapest solution. (A sort of re-analysis of Occam's razor.) And since according to the rules that Oracle seems to want to play by, then if you can win, with a trivial solution, and not have to pay for it, it seems the obvious solution.
Sorry, we may have a conceptual misunderstanding here. Are you implying that I should let them fuck me up simply because they have more money than me, and that means I must play by their rules.
To make it quite clear, I have no personal, impersonal, or otherwise vested interest in dealing with Oracle, their employees, or any other business that is associated to the nth degree with them. I am simply, and impersonally exploring a theoretical process that follows on from the logical imperatives that I (myself, and purely as a personal thought experiment) have traced to a single set of conclusions. Their is no implicit instructions, no incitement, it is merely a single (but not sole) analysis based on what I understand to be described as a "thought experiment".
"Its argument? That the salesman only gets paid when the customer pays SAP and that he can only get commissions while still working at the company. So even though he did the work and closed the deals, the company didn't get paid until after it had fired him, so he didn't deserve any compensation."
So similarly, if I hired an assassin to shoot SAP managers and lawyers (let's not get into too much detail as to how, when, where and whom (Sorry to Mr K's six honest serving men) as long as I didn't pay him until the indescribable event had happened, then I wouldn't have to pay him., "even though he did the work and closed the deals" and there would be no chain of culpable evidence by their rules.
OK, seems a bit dubious to me, but if that is the rules according to SAP, then who am I to dispute it. Get to sort them out, and it is free (although if the team doing the takeout do get to claim, they can always point out that SAP lost; so they presumably would pay their fees.)
I was an Atari man. 6502 all the way. Player Vector Graphics (sprites for those of you a generation younger). Raw coding I/O cos you only had 32K to do everything. Using a standard routine as a loadable bit of script. Forgetting that you had hard coded the I/O channel to 0. (out of all of 6). Coming back 3 months later to use it again, choosing channel 1 and not knowing why it didn't work. Because I intended it to be flexible but forgot about the hard coded port. Documentation; who needs stinking documentation...
And of course, trying to find 3 ring binders for 'De Re Atari'. Still got mine. (De Re, I gave the binders to a friend who also needed them)
Fell in love with the 6809 - favourite op code of all time
BRN, LBRN Branch (short or long) never
SOURCE FORM: BRN dd; LBRN dddd
Which in the original documentation was described as "to keep symmetry with BRA (Branch always).
"JUMP - What now?"
"OK -- we'd better have a 'DON'T JUMP'"
I don't see that sort of humour in hardware often now.
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
So we can't accuse any large data gatherer of theft when they are copying rather than taking personal information. But we could do a couple of things. We could create a "taking with intent to market" crime, where taking includes copying, or a wider "taking without clear informed consent".
In some ways the GDPR is approaching this from the other end, where disclosing without authorisation is an offence; but an offence which allowed the alleged offender to be able to provide proof of clear informed consent as a defence against the charge, is more appropriate as it deals with personal data on an individual basis, and that is where the offence lies, against that individual.
And as for the 'no doubt' claims that clear and informed is subjective and not fair to the collectors of the information, it is amazing how quickly and effectively the 'cookie requirements' clearly informed users of how cookies were used on sites - most certainly not hidden at the bottom of pages of text beneath the broken lamp with the sign warning "Beware of the Leopard".
I suspect it may be slightly more difficult to provide the 60 medium and heavy artillery pieces per mile of front...
I rather think I played with early MAF sensors (were they the same things as 'Fleisch' sensors (spelling from memory) which utilised the same principle as a heated grid through which the air passed and measuring the delta resistance?
I was young then, and at the IAM Farnborough.
One other tad of information - the microphones were basically kilner jars - chosen because of the large opening at the top with the platinum wire inside. The large opening and volume made them relatively insensitive to high frequency changes but the low frequency pulses of air caused sufficient displacement to cool the transducers.
It took me ages to find that out - I kept looking for information on microphones...
I spent quite a lot of time about 5 years ago researching this technology as it is a fascinating pre digital computer process. The 'microphones' were actually pressure transducers and an arc of about 6 of these would be placed behind the observation post and connected to it by wires.
When the observer heard a sound of interest he would press a button. This started a cine camera running that would record the 6 galvanometers attached to the transducers. These would kick when the pressure wave hit the transducers and this was recorded on film. The film was automatically developed and printed (in 1916 / 17!) and the time delays were recorded.
An analogue computer consisting of a board with pins in the positions of the transducers and string attached to each pin was used by simply choosing a length of string proportional to the sound delays - where all the six strings intersected was where the sound had originated. As the observer started the process when he heard the sound of the shell exploding the sounds that hit the transducers when recording was the sound of the guns firing.
This was how the silent pre-registration of the suppressive artillery barrage at the battle of Cambrai was planned; it prevented over 80% of the German batteries from performing their defensive roles in 1917.
By mid 1917 the system was so effective that it was being used to calibrate individual guns for barrel wear to allow corrections to be made.
Fascinating to me.
"So what can a submarine coming out of port do against an opponent which is doggedly following it constantly shining on it with active sonar? What can it do if it is doing it from deeper than its maximum torpedo engagement depth (up to 500m)? What can it do if the "target" is 40% faster than its fastest torpedo ~ up to 100 knots (not difficult if you do not need to carry meatsacks)? How do you think it will perform if the crew knows that they have a gun pointed at their temple 24x7x365?"
Well a modernised subroc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44_SUBROC would do quite nicely. Particularly with a spearfish in it. Pop off, nip about 20 KM in advance of the targets projected path and go active immediately. OK - that's not necessary. 100 knots is bloody noisy. And you aren't going to change course very fast. (high length to cross sectional area ratio so any change of direction causes serious forces perpendicular to the direction of change.) Otherwise you snap. That doesn't even need the spearfish to say 'hello'
It's the empty battlefield phenomenon. Dates back to the introduction of smokeless powder. If you can see it you can kill it. It's just a question of how? Some kills require usually unacceptable processes - as in "Can I nuke him now Sir?". But in most situations, once found means vulnerable, which generally suggests that shouting 'HERE I AM' tends to lead to a technological solution which fundamentally is constrained by 'my cost is less than your cost'. And a spearfish / subroc equivalent is a damn sight cheaper than unmanned submarines.
Don't ... read ... don't ... read ... ah sod it, I can't read it
"By accident, when making it a change improved its functionality." i.e. the enzyme was altered. Not by evolution but by the researchers. It was that change that was not evolutionary. There is no reason to assume that would have occurred through an evolutionary process. If you must insist on me being a troll at least read the correct article first <g>.
Neither - as I said in the post I thought it was one of the most important discoveries of the 19th century. But it doesn't explain anything. It describes a process by which things happen. But you can't make the Popperian nullifiable hypothesis that a single specific event will occur by "evolution". All that you can do is observe trends in genetics through probability. A simple example would be the enzyme which has been discovered that degrades PET. By accident, when making it a change improved its functionality. Great - we need it. But there is no reason to suppose whatever that this would have been forced to occur by "evolution".
That is the point that I was (obviously ineffectively) trying to make. Evolution is not deterministic, it is stochastic and as such cannot explain anything, merely describe a route that was taken to get to a particular position.
"Shohat-Ophir said the behaviour can be explained by evolution.".
It bloody well can't. Evolution doesn't explain anything. All you can say is:
"I haven't got a bloody clue how this happened - it might or might not be the optimal solution - but we didn't even know what problem was trying to be solved until this gave us the answer'. And then we analysed it retrospectively." Which is descriptive, not causality.
"NOTHING IS 'EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION"
It is simply a post hoc description of what has happened so far. Even whilst it is happening another conspiracy of genetics is attempting to do lots of things, Some of them may be better and fail for [insert your preferred reason here]. Others may be worse - and fail for [insert your preferred reason here]. That's fine - it is one of the most important concepts of the 19th century. I think it is massive in the implications. BUT - it is abused, described as a serial process retrospectively and misunderstood. Cue just about every casual science reporter.
And it doesn't really matter; evolution gives you what you get - not an computationally correct, verifiable through diverse methods and algorithms proof.
It was science fiction in reality. My 91 year old father cried. They used to go out to watch a plane fly overhead in Rotherham. And had horse drawn rubbish carts. And electric trolley busses. And I nearly cried as well.
Like to see the mars thing. Love to see Heinlein city on the moon, which we probably need, because of the cheap delta v and lots of stuff there.
Doubt if I will live to see anything else, but one can hope.
"To achieve this means using your licence fee proportionately, so we won’t investigate minor, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious complaints which do not suggest a breach of standards. Nor do we investigate gratuitously abusive complaints."
Tell me - if I described your complaint as "minor", and thus automatically "vexatious" which has a very specific meaning in UK law then would you feel this was an appropriate conflation of "it's not a very important matter" and "you are a shit stirring bastard!".
The BBC seems to feel that where it is concerned there is no significant difference. Why did they put the word "otherwise" in there?
Probably just a vexatious point. But someone should stir the shit...
And we have the very peculiar scenario that I, who was around and remember the headlines will have no problems in searching for TN1, Alpha and fraud (with appropriate solutions) and so may feel somewhat unhappy about entering into a business relationship with that person, whereas my daughter who was not born then will not have those prompts and so may enter into a relationship which on past evidence may prove to be slightly dodgy.
So we have one rule for the elderly buggers and another one for the young innocent ones. What happens to any form of diligence in these circumstances.
"You are an old fart, aren't you?"
"But you are old?"
"So how should I search for TN1 and Alpha to find out whether it is a good idea to enter into this business with him? "
Seems a tad unlikely.
Theoretically we have the concepts already (von neuman machine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine]); we simply have two problems:
1 Getting it there - this has been just about solved
2 Providing sufficient fuel (energy source) to allow the machine to have a positive feedback in reproduction
In simple terms if it hasn't got enough energy available to fund the replication process, it ain't going to work.
Now the replication process is a whole can of worms. If we could make the whole thing out of regolith then it would be trivial, albeit replication might take a while. (First one sent there, one made 50 years later; two new ones 100 years after start and do the maths yourself.)
Sadly that doesn't seem to be possible - and we still don't know how to make the harvesters (the machines that eat / utilise the initial products) build what we want.
But I am sure we will get there.
About the same time as a FTL drive gives us access to quite a lot.
Sadly there is one true answer.
I discovered this the hard way when I advised my god daughter on some pascal programming in the '80's; they had been taught one particular loop process (can't remember which; not for next, might have been do while or repeat until) and the use of the fully functional loop I explained and she coded was failed as "not the right answer".
I got a tad shirty about this and then discovered the sad truth that Shaw's dictum about those who can't...teach was sadly too true. It was explained to me in no uncertain terms that "THIS WAS THE ANSWER" and all else was a fail.
Some twenty years later and I was doing an OU Java course simulating race conditions on a train track and gating via a tunnel. My code worked perfectly including race conditions but was failed by the tutor. I did enquire as to whether it had been run, and was informed that it didn't have to be - it was the wrong answer...
You are correct; plagiarism (albeit with the skill to recognise an appropriate solution) is one of the few bases of good code authoring. Indeed, other than FP every time we spin up an instance of a class we are plagiarising our own work (or whomsoever we copied it from). Sadly most people marking the solutions provided are better at copying the "FAIL" rather than evaluating the submission.
Who are you traducing here? The British Police ( by which I assume you mean the Met., or British process of law (which is for you arrogant, ignorant buggers, the best law in the world. Just ask our judges.)
So how is an unsupported allegation the "most serious",
"turned up to the party with a Santa hat-wearing pony on a leash"
and whilst I might be tempted to do this...
"tripling her salary to $40,000 a month shortly after he started sleeping with her", although since I have neither seen her nor slept with her this is somewhat moot, I still don't actually see why the most serious allegation is....
The most serious allegation however is that Pishevar was accused of rape while in London but was later released without charge by British police.
It might be an indication of either corruption; incitement to prostitution (depending on your local law) or even genuine (given the other stuff) nasty abuse.
So to insist that the most serious thing was that the Met chose not to prosecute seems bloody stupid, unless you are suggesting that backhanders were involved.
I know you subs don't always get as well paid as you should be but perhaps an understanding of the word serious might be a good idea
97% of investors make less than the threshold level; and 3% make more.
Now what sort of investment encourages that sort of hype?
"hello, buy some shares in xyz; not only will you have a 97% chance of being fucked upon, but if we can remember the other deals, then you too can support their desire to avoid taxation. "BUT IT'S THE GREATEST DEAL IN THE WORLD; I KEEP THE RESULTS IN MY TROUSERS TIGHTLY FURLED, ITS A DEAL AND A HALF WHEN IT'S UNFURLED, IT' S THE GREATEST DEAL IN THE WORLD"
A slight abuse of Ivor Biggun; but I suspect that Doc Cox won't mind.
He was straight but there are an awful lot of suckers out there.
Bit like sterling but without the taxation assets to support it.
Followed this man every now and then since Groklaw. Most impressed with his nouse and dry comments. The only thing that does sometimes worry me is that if he is (as he seems to be) upholding the genuine tradition of integrity in the US legal system, then how many of the other buggers aren't - for far too much seems to end up awaiting the arbitrary chance of a supreme court hearing.
Well in the USA you seem to get the law that you pay for far too often. And sometimes you think you paid for it and you get Alsup.
Bit of a bugger that - so are you going to create a new religion / law / credo that says exactly what? I don't disagree with the principal I just can't see the implementation working. You could try complete separation between church and state like USA but I see an awful lot of Congressmen and Senators still quoting the bible as if it were the literal word of God - who we all know spoke and wrote in a Southern USA drawl and style.
Nah - when society signs up to fascism in the name of God then Lieutenant Heinlein's response to Nehemiah Scudder is the only rational action; albeit fictional.
"You should only own yourself".
XB170 was jolly jolly good. Howsoever, it did not (as far as I can recollect) have the sustained cruise capacity of the Concord (e was courtesy of Tony Benn [Lord Stansgate]) to keep the French happy(Best thing he ever did.));
So the key aerodynamic / weight / shape configurations were basically built around the engines. As in (if I have an engine that can do this; with that much fuel, and produce all of this thrust) then the compromise was some sort of linear equation (or second order of such), in which this, that, and product were optimised for some expected requirement [or outcome].
All the rest is just history of one paradigm or another.
This is outrageous - All we ever promised were steaks (TM) if available and simply think of the add on; by (of coarse[our working class stakes, for steak buyers]) buy three, keep one and find two other sellers who will each pay the price of your steak. And of course the premium goodies (Our steak has the blue sheen of slightly cooked, whereas other steaks cook the books, not the steaks).
And of course, recursive steak sales generate unimaginable profits to be had, whatever level of stake you have in the steak sales business.
"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum"; The Rough Rider quote is not really supported - heard attributed to McNamara and many others - suspect it existed with young Caesar and he too could not remember who it was attributed to by whichever Decurion he last had the pleasure of.
Sounds nice; being part of the bit BT left behind (i.e. Junction box outside, everyone within 100m radius gets SFA but the rest of Writtle gets FTC broadband) I suppose it is too much to request that we have a class XXXX* plate tectonics master who could do me a small favour. I'd be grateful for at least 14 femtoseconds or agree to take a contract on bits of BT management. (You choose 131 and I'll think about which one).
Or I would pay a small honorarium for any enthusiastical lady or gentleman. Merely a competent plate tectonics maneuverer; or any sparse Hermione Granger with a bit of spare block time.
It was passed to protect against the great scares of German spies ( http://graemeshimmin.com/william-le-queux-and-british-spying/ ) amid a spectacular scare which was quite viciously parodied by Neil Monroe in his Para Handy tales http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks07/0700601h.html (search for onions), and since we no longer live in such a world it is quite obvious that the terrors of the past shall have no effect whatsoever on the actors of the present.
I really cannot imagine why you should be concerned, Germany is an ally of ours and why would we even dream of repurposing legislation. Mind you, when I signed it I thought it was a brilliant catch all, 40 years on I am not so sure. Perhaps my trust in governments has waned.
If the actions by the EU are justifiable then Google has done very significant damage (Google sized damage?) to a myriad of companies who no longer exist or have been marginalised by the prior acts of Google.
So coming up with a 'solution' once you've already shot the competitors seems somewhat iniquitous and rather unreasonable. At the very least, future promises and speculative changes should not be allowed to mitigate past actions - it seems idealistic to hypothesize that significant quantities of these fines will go to the a priori losers but the fines should still be enforced.
If the actions by the EU are justified.
Well that is assuming that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass. I always was uncomfortable about that myself; I have quite a large gravitational mass (compared to most skinny buggers) but my inertial mass is amazing when the wife asks me to cut the grass or do the washing up.
Mind you, when it comes down to software or other such matters my inertial mass makes a feather look like a lead cannonball.
does the colour of the sky affect the colour of water based rivers? I was under the impression that the colour of a river (ignoring pollution, very shallow ones, etc.) was a reflection of the sky - so in a visible light spectrum how does changing the sky colour affect the colour of the river?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …”
— Isaac Asimov
And that is what is missed with an AI trained on expected rather than real data - even with real data there is a serious problem.
You’ve got to fake it to make it
Real data is sparse, so the researchers simulated half a million gravitational lens images to train the CNN. The fake images have to be as realistic as possible for the CNN to be useful in dealing with real data, so blurring and noise effects were added.
Wow - once we've taught it to find what theory predicts - guess what it finds?
This is spot the sausage in a Wurst factory; where we have trained it to find the spotted dick. Even worse (wurst?) this will then lead to a 'done that; tick the box' mentality which will preclude the other, unfound information, since our tests have been defined by our expected results. A tad of a perversion of Rev (if he was) Beyes' there.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019