telchar

Unless they are tightly locked down by the manufacturers. Perhaps jihadis will not be able to hack them in such a way as to take remote control, and perhaps the manufacturers will eventually make the automatic not-plowing-into-pedestrian system override driver controls.

Yes, no system is perfectly unhackable, but since terrorist cells tend to be small and relatively isolated I could see it being the case that the people who want to use cars as remote weapons would not be people who have the time and talent to make that happen.

State-sponsored groups may be a different story of course.

I don't see any claim in that article that this is a myth. They merely discuss variants of the story. Fwiw, I have heard Steinmetz as the origin of this, a possibility they discuss in the article without explicitly confirming or refuting it.

The analysis in your link of this document is very flawed. They only consider tailpipe emissions from a gas vehicle. Without considering the GHG cost of an electric car in total vs cost to manufacture an​ equivalent gas vehicle in addition to the lifecycle GHG cost of extracting, refining and burning fuel, the time to payback is artificially inflated. An apples-to-apples analysis results in electrics having a much more favorable outcome (I have done this myself in the past).

Also, as more renewable electricity production comes online the numbers will continue to become more in favor of electrics.

Indeed, this is something I have found to be true as well. To add to your point, when preparing to explain the reason I have to turn down a request I find that it forces me to reevaluate. Sometimes I find that the request is actually reasonable and my real reason for turning it down was only an emotional reaction to feeling otherwise overwhelmed rather than a problem with the request itself.

In those cases I may still turn it down but often I find that I can make a compromise at that point that satisfies both parties.

That's not a constructive comment.

From a civilian perspective, hypothetically speaking, why should we continue to fund the GI Bill if it's just going to be wasted? In a world where too many of the veterans get fleeced and get nothing for the money it would be rational for the rest of us to cut that benefit, perhaps replacing it with nothing or with a difference benefit like a larger pension. Personal responsibility is important but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. As a taxpayer I want societal good to come from my tax dollars, so I feel a responsibility to prevent the veterans from being taken by scammers and do discourage scamming in general.

You're right that with repeated sampling you can learn more about the data set. If I understand it correctly, I think the solution to that in DP is that you have a limit to how many times you can make your repeated query before you have spent your privacy budget and are cut off. The idea is that for a given budget level you are limited to fewer queries than you would need to learn enough to de-anonymize the data set.

If your signal processing professor was already taking that into account then I would be curious to know how that attack would work.

I think calling it prediction is a bit of a strong claim. It would probably be more accurate to say that deep patient comes to a diagnosis before the EDIT:s/prediction/physician, rather than necessarily predicting the future disease state. To properly claim prediction of the future disease state you would need to show that the patient does not have the disease at the time of the prediction.

From what I have skimmed they do not do this in the paper, although to be fair this would probably not be practical because it would require more tests to have been done in the past which in many cases were not done, e.g. imaging to confirm absence of a cancer at the time of prediction.

That said, I have worked on thia same problem and also lazily call it prediction. Also there is still immense value in earlier diagnosis in cases where early treatment leads to better outcomes, like in sepsis or cancer.

Same here, especially since I am working on the same problem and in fact also plan to try out denoising autoencoders to reduce the sparse EMR data into more learnable features. I am also using NLP on the medical notes to generate additional features. It is good to see promising results from these approaches. I will read this paper closely tomorrow but from what I have skimmed it looks well written.

I would be very interested to know if anyone is using that in practice. It seems like a promising concept.

Could you elaborate on what 10 does better than 7 on this?

Yes, Windows 7. I have heard that newer version are no better in this regard but can't speak for them directly as I am still on 7.

I recently traded away a 4K monitor for a 1080p that was better in other respects because Windows 7's handling of high resolution is still, seemingly, no better than it ever has been in recent versions of Windows. I have yet to find a way to get sufficiently large text for readability without breaking all sorts of GUIs, including built-in Windows apps. Typically I find these problems show up when a level or two deep in a menu or config window.

For me the resolution of the hardware doesn't matter a bit until the OS can handle it properly. I don't know what you're using but I would guess that it's not Windows 7.

Regarding Brooks, I've read him quite a bit as well. At this point it has become a source of entertainment to me to find out with each article how he will manage to take a factual premise and reasonable arguments to arrive at a nonsequitur conservative platitude. Around 3/4 of the way through the column he consistently takes a turn from reason, apparently hoping we won't notice that his conclusion does not follow from the rest of the article. I used to do the same on my homework when I didn't understand the material.

If you aren't reading the articles to the end (not to suggest that you personally aren't) it would be easy to feel the commentators are unfairly jumping on him. But I think they have also observed the same pattern and feel that he is playing a softly-spoken rearguard for odious views and policies.

I think providing location/COL adjustments would be a big mistake for a UBI system. Providing a flat rate encourages people to move to lower-COL places which would reduce the amount of economic activity tied up in rent. It seems to me that adjusting for COL would just reward those who choose to prop up rents and worsen the rent <-> COL cycle.

If you haven't seen it, season 2 of The Wire is mostly concerned with this. Although the show is fictional so I can't vouch for its accuracy on this, but it goes into a good deal of detail.

I've often heard that but I think it's more correct to say that both parties may think it's beneficial to them. Ultimately it is a zero-sum situation where it benefits one party more. When one party decides it's getting the short end of the stick and not likely to regain the long end they'll have plenty of incentive to oppose it.

The non-zero sum benefit of not having to compete in as many districts can't outweigh the harm of being relegated to the minority party. Surely a party would rather compete and win than not compete and lose.

As someone else who is a landlord, I would undercut you by a small margin to ensure I'm taking in rental income. Depending on supply (which you care naught about) you may find yourself sitting on empty units priced at 1/3 UBI wondering where all the tenants are.

I've never heard that interpretation of that before, but it makes so much sense. Stealing as copying done better. thanks

I can provide an anecdote. At my last company the top salesperson was a frumpy middle aged person who requested an office in the back corner of the basement far away from other people. This person consistently outperformed the other more typically frat-boyish extroverted salespeople. I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it.

Just checking, do you mean "haven't been updated"?