backprojection's comments

Does anyone know why they don't use more modern directional representation systems, like curvelets, or shearlets?

My understanding is that they provide optimally sparse representation of this type of data - data that's smooth except on these wavefront sets, and that wavelets perform comparatively poorly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearlet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvelet

Do you honestly believe that the people advocating alternative plans (low carb, etc) don't understand this argument? Why just keep on repeating it?

Wouldn't this violate the dmca? If it's not something people can get with minimal effort, then millions of people are not going to use it.

The ad-blocking plugins are so successful because their so easy to get. If something's illegal to distribute, then it's sufficiently inconvenient to obtain (tormenting, etc.) that most people won't bother.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/

got a link?

Well on an electric car you can precisely control the torque output, so put a strain/torque gage on the drive train and include those in a feedback loop.

That would be a fun project. If you can digitize the graph reliably, you can then take the discrete Fourier transform of the data, apply some denoising/thresholding to extract the main components. This would tell you if you're looking at sin(x), cos(x), cos^2(x), etc. If you have a training set, you could maybe start picking out more complex functions like abs(x), 1/x, etc.

What gas could possible emanate from a flash drive that wouldn't emanate from any other electronic device?

>Not to mention the Ockham's razor angle: if US interests wanted to nab Assange on trumped up charges one would assume they have the ingenuity to come up with something a bit less flimsy.

Why? It's rape. All rationality goes out the window if someone's accused of rape. It makes a lot of sense.

I'm not sure you've addressed eridius'a comments. I understand what you're saying about peering, but I think his/her point is that ISP customers pay ISPs not to care about peering.

I think that's generally the point that neutrality activists make, that in large par the internet works because users have equal access to any network, regardless of the asymmetry inherent to that access, and that users are willing to pay for the cost of that asymmetry.

If Comcast needs more money to properly connect it's users to Netflix, then that's fine, charge me more money. I'll gladly pay directly for real infrastructure upgrades. But forcing that revenue to go through Netflix first, you're fundamentally changing a key feature of the Internet.

The fact that these issues go away if there is no asymmetry (peering) doesn't seem so relevant.

That doesn't sound so bad. I wonder if the process could be made to work with salt water.

his point is that bandwidth sets a lower limit on lag, for a fixed packet size. high bandwidth is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

I kind of feel like we should be able to use scientific notation for this

300GB hardrive becomes 300 10^9 bytes or 3 10^10. 32GB or memory becomes 32 2^30, or 2^35.

No ambiguity at all, and if you're spending hundreds of dollars for hardware, you should at least be able to grasp exponentiation.

Risk of dying as a function of age, obviously.

Well your vote would be proportional to your investment, $100 out of $2.4M, in this case.

> That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public knowledge

That would kind of be the point, it would be about fairness. People may not want to invest in a promising project that could change the world, just for it to be bought up by the next FB/Google.

What if, rather than offering equity, crowdfunders got voting rights instead. I feel that most of the outrage from the Oculus deal is that people feel betrayed. They could almost not have picked a worse outfit to have been bought by (rightly or wrongly, the point here is sentiment). If there had been a shareholder-esque vote, I think it's unlikely the deal would have been approved.

So maybe that could be the deal going forward - sure I'll put up $100 to fund your project, but that comes at the cost of you not selling out in the future.

EDIT: Clearly the weight of your vote would be proportional to your investment.

> What are some ways that such an investment could make sense?

My intuition is that patronage systems lead to undue influence. If Coke will fund your video series, they'll want something in return, usually advertisements. That then leads a subtle (or not) influence on the content.

I think the best way to avoid that ultimately is crowd funding on a more massive scale, i.e. 10s-100s of millions of dollar, but that comes with a whole bag of issues.

Are there materials dense enough to be useful for this, and thermally non-conductive/stable enough to withstand the heat of reentry?

> Not a new idea.

Who cares? Why do people always feel compelled to make this kind of comment?

Will there be pirate drones that fly around looting the Amazon drones?

I'm glad I'm not the only one. But how do you handle situation? My family usually takes offense, and I can see that I would seem arrogant for doing so. I just don't know how to communicate how intrusive and strident the TV is to me.