peterwoo

The maximum frequency you can detect is limited by your sampling rate, but there's not a limit on the precision with which you can break those frequencies up.

It's controlled by a parameter NFFT -- the PSD will compute (NFFT/2+1) values evenly spaced between 0 and the Nyquist frequency.

So say the frame rate is 15Hz and you compute with NFFT=2048, then PSD[970] contains the amplitude at 7.09Hz.

This was a really cool project by the way!

Well neither did he say or imply that it should be prevented, so again you're being fallacious here.

He didn't say or even insinuate that one has a right to be CEO of anything nor that any kind of speech should be banned.

> A government is far more likely to oppress you, deny you rights, blackmail you for political reasons, etc. because it has the resources to do so.

I don't know... you're asserting as a fact here that one is more likely to be oppressed or blackmailed by the USG than by a criminal. But for blackmail alone there are thousands of criminal cases per year in the US, and an incalculable amount of "oppression" caused by criminals generally. What are the numbers for USG cases of blackmail each year? I guess they wouldn't be tallied... But I'd have to estimate that they're somewhat lower.

You have 3 assumptions here, all of which are very questionable.

1. The workers are informed of the risks and safety hazards.

2. The workers will starve if they don't work this job.

3. The workers had a free choice whether or not to work there.

By using developer consoles you're accessing to your own computer, and as long as you aren't circumventing DRM, or committing some other criminal act, it's not illegal. Not by my reading of the situation, but IANAL... What is the legal precedent to which you're referring?

These companies lose more money to fraud in a quarter than they have ever lost due to people exporting their movie ratings, or whatever other non-criminal acts people have been committing at the console. I don't understand why we need to posit a 2nd (more sinister) motivation.

Well, if true it's a surprising principal... Theaters have to inform their occupants that pirating is illegal? What case set that precedent?

None of that makes sense, at all.

Asking targets to first go to the account->security settings to disable the option named "Allow my account to be hijacked if I paste malicious JavaScript", and then to paste this JavaScript, seems to me to be quite clearly less effective than the simpler "paste this JavaScript".

Furthermore I strongly suspect that compromised accounts cause more harm to Facebook's bottom line than users who are exporting their address books. Millions lost every quarter due to fraud vs... what, exactly?

Wrong. Look at the Environment section of their website. Read the PRs and the blog posts they link to.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/eptf.html

> "Here's the bottom line: Apple is as obsessed with the theory of so-called climate change as its board member Al Gore is,"

> After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change.

... etc

Every single mention of climate change is prefixed with "so-called", in this PR and every other one. If you read through these articles you'll find that they believe climate change stopped in 1997.

... they didn't lose half a billion dollars.

It doesn't sound to me like the author is as technically inept as your making it sound here. Perhaps a little ignorant of some legal details of the court orders, but someone who has done a bit more than "toyed around" with SMTP. In fact, obviously so -- making your assertions about his intelligence appear more ideologically motivated than reasonable.

The system design for VFEmail is apparently available here: https://www.vfemail.net/design.php

It appears to have occurred to him to think about how to build custom email systems with SMTP support.

The privacy FAQ for VFEmail is here: https://www.vfemail.net/privacyandsecurity.php

It's not true that he claims on the blog that VFEmail is a secure service in the same sense that Lavabit claimed to be, and his FAQ answers for people concerned about privacy are essentially:

1) Use their web interface to PGP. He's transparent about the fact that with this option your encrypted email could be read, if your password were intercepted.

2) Better yet use client side PGP.

> ...using the Webmail interface for PGP stores your private key on the server, and requires you to send your key password to VFEmail. That subjects your encryption key to interception by a third party.

> ... Most importantly - Use PGP with your own email client. You should store your key on your device(s), under your control. Again, illegal access by a 3rd party could compromise your key, so be very careful of what you open and where you surf.

Lavabit marketed a claim to be so secure that even their administrators couldn't read your email. This was untrue, and curious in juxtaposition to the spam/content filtering features it had. VFEmail is pretty upfront -- unless you're encrypting everything client side, someone can read it.

So basically if one reads beyond the first few paragraph, or visits the email service that he "claims" to own, it's clear that all these "he's a moron, has only toyed around with email, doesn't understand Lavabit's encryption, etc." claims being made are simply character assassination.

Furthermore, the FBI didn't "call" or "ask for" the pen register or SSL keys. They subpoenaed Lavabit and served them with a search warrant for a criminal case. One which they eventually complied with.[1]

[1] http://archive.is/Tdneo: "Since the SSL certificates formerly used to protect access to Lavabit have been compromised..."

The first search needn't be illegal. An example:

NSA surveillance of a smuggler in Mexico produces the name of Joe Schmoe in El Paso (for concreteness let's say the intercept is "Joe Schmoe will distribute our cocaine, as always"). The DEA gets tipped, Joe Schmoe's name goes up on a tack board and he's put under surveillance. A case may be built from there using classical police methods.

Parallel construction is not that. You're describing simple perjury.

Yeah, that would seem to be more practical with respect to currying (and perhaps dynamic dispatch). I was just trying to make it look as similar as possible to the Leibniz notation. :)

(0, 1) $ (\x -> x*x)

How are you certain that the NSA contributed to this case?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

The Bay Area winters are comparatively mild, and if you're going to die of exposure it's most likely to be elsewhere. I don't dispute that.

But I don't think we can say that it is very difficult to freeze here, nor that all one needs is a coat and blanket for protection. It implies the absurdity that the people must have tried very hard to die that way, trivializes the difficulty of obtaining adequate clothing, ignores concerns such as injury/illness/addiction/age which increase risk of freezing, etc.

Incidentally, the 2010 report on homeless deaths in NYC (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/57985th_annual_re...) says that 6 died from exposure to cold. We had a comparable number this year in the Bay Area (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081571/bay-area...). I don't bring this up to start a contest or anything -- you can't draw very many conclusions from these numbers alone -- only to suggest that the risk should not be trivialized.

I found that a very weird thing to say, given that eight people have froze to death in this area during the last month.

I wouldn't assume that surviving the cold is very easy. Hypothermia doesn't even require very low temperatures.

Yup. There's a certain absurdity to it. The names of the current mafia bosses in the New York area are listed on Wikipedia (Five Families).

Also, Nvidia, and Applied Materials in Santa Clara. Xilinx, Altera, and Maxim in San Jose.

Silicon Valley still has lots of silicon tech!

> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.

Your answer seems to assume the consent of these women. Do you still think it's more romantic, even if they don't want to be kissed at all?

There is no incentive not to work. With or without guaranteed basic income, you stand to lose tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in compensation by quitting work. So there is no financial incentive at least (except e.g. the cost of commuting, which is generally small in comparison to your lost salary/wages).

Guaranteed basic income doesn't mean guaranteed employment. So if you invent something that lets me get rid of 90% of my work force, I can still buy it from you, fire my people, and you can still get rich.

This is difficult to understand.

Here's an amusing counterargument:

http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html

500-800req/sec over 10-20 servers with ~30ms response times. 1 req / server seemed plausible.

Thanks. I admit I'm not familiar with the platform.

How could one single-threaded dino serve more than 833 requests / sec?

The difference is that INDENT and OUTDENT have to be defined by context-sensitive productions. Even if this occurs in what would otherwise be the "lexing" stage of the parser.

It can be parsed to an AST -- as you note, it can be parsed into two ASTs. It's called an ambiguous grammar, which can still be context free.