< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Jan-28-13|| ||quantum.conscious2: thanks for your posts on huygen theory , <johnlspouge>.|
|Jun-30-13|| ||as.buka: <johnlspouge: @<al wazir>: A comment from your link:
"<The quantum computer referenced in the summary managed the immense feat of finding the factors of the number 15.>* While it is true that factoring numbers of the magnitude used in cryptography is now a "matter of engineering", <there are profound difficulties involved in scaling quantum computing>. The fundamental problem is called "decoherence" and describes the tendency of quantum systems to become entangled with their environment, and the consequent loss of pure quantum states. The issues involved in quantum computation connect to deep issues of thermodynamics and entropy, and research on quantum computation has potentially great significance for fundamental physics. <Cryptography may have to develop and implement new, extended standards as computational techniques evolve, but the encryption sky is not yet falling.>"|
*Note to certain members of this forum, who by now know who they are: this is not really a difficult task>
that should sting - to that <quantum.conscious> guy :)
all he knows is 12th grade physics , maths , chemistry and flaunts it as if he knows all the secrets of universe ("i can solve the problems of physics of much more complicated level than those of 'resnick and halliday' ")
kid , if you have to flaunt the proficiency in solving problems of 12th grade , then you are way out of your league here. just mixing it with new age mumbo-jumbo does not cut it - we talking quantum computing and such here. and if you really know who you are , then why you getting entangled in all the silly arguments in <argue> forum and such whereas the kind of entanglements you should be interested in are quantum entanglements in physics...
just kidding :)
very nice post , <johnlspouge> . thanks!
|Jul-13-13|| ||Abdel Irada: Apropos of your recent posts about <BP>: In what context, if any, is "!!" used as a symbol for "logic fault"?|
I've looked for it in vain so far, but if you can find me a reference for it, I think it may come in most handy. ;-)
|Jul-13-13|| ||johnlspouge: My usage of "!!" as "logic fault" is predicated on <Big Pawn>'s posts. My meaning was clear enough, so I used it. I needed an abbreviation to spare me the trouble of responding at length to spam.|
|Jul-13-13|| ||Abdel Irada: Well, now you've gone and started an urban legend. :-D|
In any case, it certainly *sounds* plausible enough. I can easily imagine, e.g., programmers using the symbol in debugging.
And by now, you will doubtless have seen my guess as to the symbol's "etymology."
|Sep-09-13|| ||KAMAL GOEL: hey, i think you are a mathematician.
i am studing (b.tech, first sem.)in a college in INDIA.
and the maths faculty here is very bad.
so i want to learn maths by myself.
i want you to give me the name of some good maths books related to matrices especially iterations, gauss jacobie,siedel methods etc.
in which i can get the proof of all these things.
i think you can help me.
|Sep-10-13|| ||johnlspouge: < <KAMAL GOEL> wrote: hey, i think you are a mathematician. >|
Whatever gave you that idea? :)
I am curious. How old are you?
The best book on the theory of matrices known to me (but no Gauss-Jacobi or Siedel algorithms) is The Theory of Matrices by Peter Lancaster and Miron Tismenetsky. The best practical book of algorithms known to me, including matrix algorithms, is Numerical Recipes
[ http://www.nr.com/ ]
I have one other book to recommend (on the numerical analysis of matrices), but it is in my office, so I will give you its name soon.
|Sep-13-13|| ||johnlspouge: < <KAMAL GOEL> wrote: hey, i think you are a mathematician. >|
Here is an old book, but a good one, containing specifically the algorithms you were curious about.
[ http://www.amazon.com/Analysis-Nume... ]
|Dec-09-13|| ||johnlspouge: Fields of Gold (Sting) cover by Eva Cassidy
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efro... ]
|Dec-14-13|| ||FSR: hey, i think you are a mathematician. The family and I were at Noodles & Company last night and they gave us No. 16 (on the metal thing they give you so the server can find your table once your order is ready). Am I right in thinking that 16 is the only number that's expressible both as x to the y power and as y to the x power, where x does not equal y?|
|Dec-15-13|| ||johnlspouge: < <FSR> wrote: hey, i think you are a mathematician. >|
Hey, say it with sincerity :)
Here is a Word document with my answer. The level of explanation is likely adequate to your (presumed) numerical abilities, but let me know otherwise.
[ http://www.spouge.net/html_home/fil... ]
|Dec-15-13|| ||FSR: Thanks. Wow, you really are a mathematician! That was way beyond my level of comprehension. (The last math class I took was calculus, when I was in college. I memorized enough stuff to get an A, then immediately forgot it, figuring I'd never have any use for it.) Could you give me a solution or two (to two decimal places is fine)? Thanks again.|
|Dec-16-13|| ||johnlspouge: @<FSR>: Here is a more elementary (and in some ways much better) solution of your problem.|
|Dec-16-13|| ||FSR: <johnlspouge> Thanks. I appreciate your efforts to make the solution clear to the higher-mathematically impaired such as me. :-)|
|Oct-07-14|| ||hv.U.grwnup: <johnlspouge> , good day to you, sir. shall we talk a bit about science/reality? it would be a polite as well as short conversation (meaning it is not likely to put strenuous demand on time/mind) and i would see if you come up with some good points which i need to explore further . thank you , sir.|
(btw , <kamal goel> was 17 years old when he wrote to you (since you wanted to know his age). he used to be my student earlier. thanks for helping him graciously and compassionately)
|Dec-25-14|| ||wordfunph: <johnlspouge> Merry Christmas!|
|Dec-30-14|| ||Abdel Irada: Are you angry with me for some reason?
If so, please tell me what it is.
|Dec-31-14|| ||johnlspouge: Hi, <Abdel>. No. I am guessing the reason for your query, but you might need to un-ignore someone to get the context of my comment, which was intended to give you some relief.|
|Dec-31-14|| ||Abdel Irada: Actually, I was referring to the post where you scolded me for my suggestion that Greenpeace may have been set up in a false-flag operation, saying, <Good writers....>|
That seemed a little sharp.
I've never said I was good at everything, and there are plenty of things for which I have no aptitude at all (for 64 recent examples, see the Holiday Present Hunt), but I do make so bold as to think I'm a good writer.
|Dec-31-14|| ||johnlspouge: I felt that you answered a question yourself, and rather wishfully, when the writer of the piece provided you with a link to the Greenpeace apology, which made no equivocation about responsibility. I accept that there might be the smallest possibility (which, indeed, I did not consider) of an unwarranted apology for a false-flag operation, and I understand your reluctance to decry Greenpeace. If I may be sharp once again, however, it does damage to everyone, when ready facts are not sought and then acknowledged.|
I knew a jab at your writing skills would get your attention, but you have no real reason to dwell on the sharpness in my previous post: I feel no shame in admitting that I regard your writing skills as superior to mine anyway.
|Dec-31-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <johnlspouge: I felt that you answered a question yourself, and rather wishfully, when the writer of the piece provided you with a link to the Greenpeace apology, which made no equivocation about responsibility. I accept that there might be the smallest possibility (which, indeed, I did not consider) of an unwarranted apology for a false-flag operation, and I understand your reluctance to decry Greenpeace. If I may be sharp once again, however, it does damage to everyone, when ready facts are not sought and then acknowledged.>|
Granted. I did subsequently admit that Greenpeace probably really was guilty.
But consider that I'm a journalist, and that also means I'm something of a professional skeptic. I tend to take almost nothing for granted. That often proves pointless, but I also think that in principle it's necessary, lest narratives go unquestioned.
<I knew a jab at your writing skills would get your attention>
My real concern was the context. You may have noticed I've been more than a little beleaguered of late, with three cyberstalkers trying to tell me my entire career is a fabrication, and I'd rather see them denied ammunition to buttress that claim.
<I feel no shame in admitting that I regard your writing skills as superior to mine anyway.>
I would say rather that we are both proficient writers in our respective fields. I would never dream of trying to out-write you in science and maths, where you know far more than I. :-)
|Dec-31-14|| ||johnlspouge: < You may have noticed I've been more than a little beleaguered of late, with three cyberstalkers >|
I apologize for my inadvertent contribution to the truly despicable aims of the cyberstalkers. It was not my intention.
Does this mean I must give you a bye on everything? :)
|Jan-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: No. Just most things. ;-)
|May-12-15|| ||WannaBe: Officer Kenny have had an interesting history, the latest death is his second.|
This may be unusual, the first case, was also cleared, and Matt Kenny wasn't the first officer on the scene.
With that in mind, (which was not mentioned in the Yahoo article I linked to) we'll look a bit further:
1. Matt Kenny is a 12 year veteran (we'll round down the fractional year), which usually mean you don't need a partner and supervision:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/police... (scroll down)
2. What is the history of Ismael Ozanne:
6th generation Wisconsonian, 5 years of experience, raised through the ranks. I feel/think, he is someone with integrity.
3. Matt Kenny was the first on the scene, as you noted in your post, he arrived without backup, Kenny is a veteran, maybe that day he was assigned without a partner, or maybe his partner was ill, to me that is not important.
He responded, and was first on the scene, and Kenny know he is alone with a situation that he needs to resolve.
4. "... the officer used lawful deadly force after he was staggered by a punch to the dead and feared for his life."
I do not know the height and weight of the shooting victim, but if I am an officer and after issuing orders and then being struck. I'd probably be afraid, too. Knowing that I am the first responder and I don't know where my back-ups are.
5. From yahoo article: <Then, Ozanne walked through evidence from the scene, 911 callers, Robinson's friends, police affidavits, crime lab reports and more to paint a picture of a young man out of control from a mix of hallucinogenic mushrooms, marijuana and Xanax. Kenny rushed to the apartment building and immediately became concerned that Robinson was attacking someone upstairs.>
So Kenny c(w)ould have waited for back ups, or, for the risk of the safety of people being attacked, he took action and went in. Is this the fault of the officer?
|May-13-15|| ||johnlspouge: < He responded, and was first on the scene, and Kenny know he is alone with a situation that he needs to resolve. >|
This statement is incorrect, and it is central to my point. You should examine the methods of foreign police:
[ http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/u... ]
The first officer does <not> need to resolve the situation. He needs to contain it and keep it harmless until backup arrives. This example from China shows a policy of containment, where an officer fires a weapon to force an assailant with a knife to stay away from other people:
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUd... ]
These examples and the corresponding statistics from other countries shows that a policy of containment while waiting for backup can usually resolve situations without lethal force. This procedure differentiates US police policy from policy in other countries. The best example I know of the benefits of patient policing is the following stand-off in Canada, where a gunman was isolated and thereby held harmless.
[ http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c... ]
In many cases now videotaped, the US police clearly are not taught to contain and wait for backup. They escalate situations, making results predictably lethal.
I have little interest in debating the peculiarities of the one case you present, because it just shows that the standard US police procedure of escalation puts officers' lives in unnecessary danger. Present US police procedures promote unnecessary lethality, and that this can be changed if the public recognizes that in most cases, a procedural change would render use of lethal force unnecessary.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
from the Chessgames Store