Points-to analysis quote

Ran into a quote on points-to analysis recently (for me):

Current points-to analysis is like dissecting an animal by cutting it on a grid pattern into 1-cm cubes. I want to cut it at the joints.

Cheaper, Low Quality Transportation

Given the "power" of the internet, we should be able to schedule ad-hoc rides on the cheap.

Paxis - Taxis that run on a public on-demand schedule? Pack those cars up with people who have similar sources and destinations to be more efficient. I guess these are actually the same as Shuttles. Oops!

Practus - "Buses" that use Drivers-Ed students. The students get practice by actually driving people around. The person riding shotgun should know two things. (1) Directions. (2) How to drive. Finally, the car may be one of those cars with a passenger-side brake.

Come on!

Practice makes perfect?

I've always wondered what separated 90%-accurate free throw shooters in the NBA from the 80% folks, the 76%ers, and lower. I'm not convinced that it's just practice. I'm not sure how much Sam Cassell practices anymore, but he hit 88% of his free throws last year. Lebron must practice like crazy and he only hits 70%. It's not all "talent" either, is it? People can get better, to some degree. Are some forms just more consistent? Is it mentality? Basically, is it coachable? Shaq did hire a free throw coach, and hit a high of 62.2% in the 2002-2003 season (before retreating to 42.2% last season).

I believe in coaching, but in most cases I've only experienced beginner levels. Snowboarding and tennis: I remember both as being quite frustrating at first but enjoyable with just the slightest bit of advice. And of course, there's driving. Nobody would let you on the road for the first time without watching a few videos and sitting with an instructor.

Of course not everything is fun and sports.  I suppose you can say that you receive a lot of coaching in school, and it seems reading, writing, and communication are the primary focuses for most people.  That's fair.  That's most of what others see about you.

Anyhow, I haven't enjoyed a writing class since English 1A. I have a feeling my writing and communication skills flattened-out. That's not to say that my style has not changed; it has.  In particular, I don't uses ellipses as much anymore, but the phrase "in particular" is everywhere now. What hasn't changed is my  tendency to use "anyway/anyhow/any***" as a cop-out when I don't have a good transition.

Anyway, this is practice. Reading, in a way, is also practice. I suppose practice is all I can do.  I can't stay in school forever, and I wouldn't want to either.

Only $10.95 on Amazon -- free shipping!

Wow. I found a link to Amazon today from a web search for myself. It really is me! I can't believe that they charge $10 for this 8 page paper.

Here's the screen cap for posterity, in case they stop selling it on Amazon.

Don't Huff and Puff, just Huff... the VT tragedy and the ensuing debate

This is probably not the best time to debate -- as one Reddit poster said, "Can we at least let the corpses get cold first?". I'm sorry; I don't trust my memory, so I'm just going to take my brain dump while I still remember what I want to say. My condolences to the friends and families of the 33 involved. What happened was terrible...

So, this morning I was just reading a terribly cute story my niece wrote about a metaphorical bout between the Sun and the Wind. Well, I'm not going to post her story, but the moral of it was that you can't get what you want from people by just "huffing and puffing" at them all of the time. Overall, very impressive for a six year-old.

Well, tonight I finally sat down and read about the VT shooting. I read the accounts of those who "knew" the shooter. I read the accounts of those who witnessed the events, and the heroic stance made by a particular professor. I read about the fears (and hopefully, isolated instances) of racial backlash. And, of course, I tried to soak in both sides of the gun debate.

Now, I honestly don't know all the points of each side, but what I gather from each side:

1. Pro-carry-conceal (I think that's the group): Presence of other armed and sane individuals can contain an incident. This often does not require firing a gun. Also, countries that do not restrict gun ownership have fewer incidents. Gun laws don't do anything: the shooter wasn't a criminal until Monday
   
2. Anti-carry-conceal (I don't know the exact fancier name): friendly fire, confusion, and other reasons for escalation. More isolated/singleton shootings, e.g., during a drunk bar-fight, may occur. The US may turn Wild Wild West (it has before, right?). If things aren't that extreme, at least we may all live in fear (or with just a hint of fear) of offending others, as many are now armed.
   

Well, I don't think people need guns to subdue or contain incidents. There must be something less extreme. After all, even with a gun, containment does not require firing it.

• Tazers? Those take skill to aim (I'm not sure if it works through thick clothing)
• Pepper spray? Range is probably too short
• Guns -- with infinite clips. No.
  
• Guns -- with one-bullet clips. Like an old musket. Actual-shooters will be less effective (reload time) and accidental-shooters can only make one mistake. Perhaps such one-balled gunmen will only intimidate.
  

Anyway, I don't get why debates always consider the extremes. I find that most solutions are a compromise.