Slashdot Mirror

This reminds me of the classic question posed by a researcher at Stanford: why do the bubbles in a pint of Guinness sink? http://www.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/guinness/ind ex.html

ATI (X700) support was apparently feasible with Drake, but rather involved. Haven't tried with Eft.

nvidia support was good with both a 6800GT and 7600GS, but widescreen resolutions (1680x1050 using either a Dell 2005FP or a BenQ FP202W) are pretty much a deal-breaker since they seem to require editing xorg.conf. and if you want to go with alternate timings, well ...

http://suif.stanford.edu/~csapuntz/rv280-linux-dvi .html

The original studies (deltascan and sigmascan) are in two places, both linked from the Foresight Strategic Horizon Scans page.

http://www.foresight.gov.uk/HORIZON_SCANNING_CENTR E/Strategic_Horizon_Scans/Strategic_Horizon_Scans. html

Hundreds of papers there. I haven't found the one with this "legal rights" suggestion yet.

See also the Singularity Summit:
http://sss.stanford.edu/program/

But I tend to agree with Kurzweil, that these changes will happen organically. We don't look at people with technological advances like eyeglasses or coclear implants as unworthy of human rights. We will gradually overcome the many limitations of the human body over time.
Or at least that's what I hope, because as Bill Joy notes, the alternatives are pretty scary.

Yes - they'll fight the extension of copyright. The Internet Archive filed an Amicus brief in the Eldred case (which sadly went against Eldred and the congress' new terms were left standing).

Brewster Kahle (the founder of the archive) is now personally suing the Attorney General over 'orphan works' (represented by Larry Lessig). Some details of the ongoing case here :

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id= 76756

and

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/kahle-v-gonzales

I could be snarky, but I'll just say this: Please, be honest, or leave. As a Sony employee, you could probably offer a lot of insight in these discussions. But you aren't - you're astroturfing. Please go away.

I've found Einstein's Puzzle to be solvable by everybody I've considered to have a top-rate analytical mind.

The page I linked to claims a 2% success rate among college students.

Physics simulations and image processing can be (and are) done on GPUs. Same for any hardcore math stuff, like Folding Proteins. The problem with the AMD approach is that there are only so many (and I don't think it is many, but I really don't know, so if you do, please let me know) different kinds of operations. Like I said, the physics simulations and image processing are the same type of problem and also conveniently tackled very proficiently by graphics hardware.

One of the tradeoffs of civilization is figuring out how to make it sustainable. Our current method is not sustainable. Refusing to change because you want to keep your lifestyle is to guarantee that you lose that lifestyle.

John Mccarthy (the father of lisp) believes that our progress is sustainable in a form remarkably similar to what we have now.

I wonder what kind of score the very first mouse would get: http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/Archive/patent /Mouse.html

The installed software re-routes all of your internet traffic through comScore's proxy servers. In most cases, they're probably just monitoring the URL's you visit, but they also check check more specific information in some cases... they say they verify the user's demographics (name, address, it sounds like purchases are tracked as well), and depending on what they're doing research on at the time, they sometimes track P2P activity, audio streaming activity, instant messaging statistics, etc.

The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
- This paper tells you what PageRank really is, by the original author.

Efficient Computation of PageRank
http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/1999-31
- This paper tells you how they efficiently compute it

And as far as I know about information retrieval, the magic you see on Google today isn't primarily contributed by PageRank, since people fake it so much nowadays with domain farms.

The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
- This paper tells you what PageRank really is, by the original author.

Efficient Computation of PageRank
http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/1999-31
- This paper tells you how they efficiently compute it

And as far as I know about information retrieval, the magic you see on Google today isn't primarily contributed by PageRank, since people fake it so much nowadays with domain farms.

The algorithms behind PageRank are no secret. Why not just read about them from the source?

Heh, you wait 'till Google Ep. 1 - BackRub Garage comes out, then it's really jumped the shark (laser equipped or otherwise).

Stanford Intellectual Property Exchange (IPX) A team of leading intellectual property lawyers and computer scientists seek to create and deploy an online intellectual property exchange (IPX), with robust commercial and non-commercial functionalities, which is equally accessible to individual content creators, large media companies, consumers, and others. The system will massively reduce legal transaction costs for intellectual property exchanges. It will obviate, or eliminate the need for live legal consultation for platform-based transactions. IPX is a literal "marketplace of ideas," and their myriad instantiations...............@ CodeX: Stanford Center for Computers and Law: http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/codex/ #projects .................We need hackers...............

The implementation is available, and you can generate the hashed passwords yourself, even offline. Save the implementation and put it somewhere you're sure won't go down.
I doubt the project will die, though.

1. Phishing attacks are becoming more common, and obviously, it is necessary for all users to be more cautious about exactly where they are entering their passwords -- this means being very alert to the contents of the URL bar (so as to not be deceived by things like "http://www.google.com.blahblah.phisher.tripod.com /google..."), and also not being misled by javascript window-within-window things that make something else look like the URL bar, etc. All this probably requires a greater level of attention than is within the capabilities of, say, old people (or even those teenagers on MySpace). So how do you make sure you don't give away your password to the wrong guys?
2. A common phishing-like attack is to somehow hack into some low-security site and get some username-password pairs, then try them at other sites. As you might guess, this trick is quite effective, because most people use the same password everywhere. Remembering hundreds of different hard-to-guess strings is somewhat hard, after all.

1. Phishing attacks are becoming more common, and obviously, it is necessary for all users to be more cautious about exactly where they are entering their passwords -- this means being very alert to the contents of the URL bar (so as to not be deceived by things like "http://www.google.com.blahblah.phisher.tripod.com /google..."), and also not being misled by javascript window-within-window things that make something else look like the URL bar, etc. All this probably requires a greater level of attention than is within the capabilities of, say, old people (or even those teenagers on MySpace). So how do you make sure you don't give away your password to the wrong guys?
2. A common phishing-like attack is to somehow hack into some low-security site and get some username-password pairs, then try them at other sites. As you might guess, this trick is quite effective, because most people use the same password everywhere. Remembering hundreds of different hard-to-guess strings is somewhat hard, after all.

1. Phishing attacks are becoming more common, and obviously, it is necessary for all users to be more cautious about exactly where they are entering their passwords -- this means being very alert to the contents of the URL bar (so as to not be deceived by things like "http://www.google.com.blahblah.phisher.tripod.com /google..."), and also not being misled by javascript window-within-window things that make something else look like the URL bar, etc. All this probably requires a greater level of attention than is within the capabilities of, say, old people (or even those teenagers on MySpace). So how do you make sure you don't give away your password to the wrong guys?
2. A common phishing-like attack is to somehow hack into some low-security site and get some username-password pairs, then try them at other sites. As you might guess, this trick is quite effective, because most people use the same password everywhere. Remembering hundreds of different hard-to-guess strings is somewhat hard, after all.

1. Phishing attacks are becoming more common, and obviously, it is necessary for all users to be more cautious about exactly where they are entering their passwords -- this means being very alert to the contents of the URL bar (so as to not be deceived by things like "http://www.google.com.blahblah.phisher.tripod.com /google..."), and also not being misled by javascript window-within-window things that make something else look like the URL bar, etc. All this probably requires a greater level of attention than is within the capabilities of, say, old people (or even those teenagers on MySpace). So how do you make sure you don't give away your password to the wrong guys?
2. A common phishing-like attack is to somehow hack into some low-security site and get some username-password pairs, then try them at other sites. As you might guess, this trick is quite effective, because most people use the same password everywhere. Remembering hundreds of different hard-to-guess strings is somewhat hard, after all.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-positio n/

Buffett didn't come up with that. John Rawls did.

It's almost certainly a lifetime achievement, though not just for papers he wrote 30 years ago. Hawking is pretty active, as a quick look at the SPIRES index will show:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r awcmd=FIND+EA+HAWKING%2C+S+W&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=d s(d)

His most recent paper of interest is the 2005 paper on information loss in black holes, where he argues that information can in fact leak out of a black hole due to a quantum mechanical effect. The irony of this paper is that he made a public bet with another famous general relativity researcher 9 years ago that information which went into the black hole could never come out again. After publishing his paper, Hawking conceded the bet, though the paper is still somewhat controversial in the field.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

"We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period."

You're exactly right in every respect, but you forgot one word: yet.

Even if you trust the present incumbent implicitly, in four years you've got someone totally different. In thirty years you can go from a stable government to a civil war, or a totalitarian fascist state.

Given this unavoidable risk, why gamble at all if it isn't necessary? You can't ever "win" at this gamble - only draw level (for the time being) or lose in a big, big way.

"We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts."

Indeed. However, by putting an unnecessary and powerful system into place to fight crime, you also open it to abuse should anyone redefine what "crime" means. Kind of like how the PATRIOT act was only ever to fight terrorism, and people were shocked and horrified at the idea that anyone would abuse such hallowed powers... and then five years later it's being used as a matter of course to harrass peaceful demonstrators, evict dissenters from political rallies and mass-spy on regular american citizens.

If a law enables something, somebody, sooner or later will use it for that purpose. Against human ingenuity, the corrupting nature of power and the entire weight of human history "honest injun" doesn't count for shit.

We have the process of law. We have checks and balances for a reason - reasonable, competent people understand this, and can work within those restrictions.

Anyone who wants to increase their power or gut those restrictions is either pathetically misguided, more interested in accruing power than doing their job, or simply incompetent.

"If any sites of note are wrongly blocked, you will hear about it very quickly. Again, we are not China, and news travels fast. The potential for abuse here is small."

Riiight. And do you know why "news travels fast"? Because there's no way to prevent its spread. Like, say, a national censorship system. Oh, wait...

Why did places like North Korea and China lead the way in national internet censorship projects? Why do places like Sweden and Holland not feel the need? Do you see any connection there?

I don't imply that setting up a national censorship system will lead to a totalitarian police-state overnight.

In return, don't imply that the guy you vote for will remain in power for ever and always be reasonable, don't imply that increasing the power of governments doesn't make it more tempting to misuse, and don't imply that there's no connection at all between the freedom of communication of a country, and the freedom of communication of a country.

Plus, the aim here is to block off information. Either the systen's good at it or it's bad at it. If it's good at it it's useful, but the potential for abuse is great. If it's bad at it then there's little potential for abuse... but there's also no point in wasting time and money setting it up. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, I could also troll briefly about whether restricting child porn is even a good idea, or whether it provides a release-mechanism preventing abuse, but that's both a more open question and off-topic.

The possible reasons mostly burn down to the fact that they fear they are losing control over their own language.

And to understand that you have to consider the history of these speech communities and the fact that another culture with rather different values takes power over their language by writing it down, thus creating a kind of standard, abstracting it from the social reality of the speakers etc. (For a very extreme example of refusal see this wonderful pdf-article.)

Wanting to have control over one's own lebenswelt is a very democratic, very American, very Bill-of-rights-ish attitude.

Doesn't mean that I support every decision of these speech communities, but a appreciate the attitude.

Information is non-material.

Information can be stored in material media, such as hard disks or DNA, and can be propogated using material media, such as electomagnetic waves, but it never originates from material sources alone.

The true Christian stance on DNA is: "render unto the material realm, that which is of the material realm. Render unto the non-material realm, that which of the non-material realm."

The information in the DNA is not of the material realm. Just try answering this question: how did the information in the first cell get encoded? This information, which represents a serialized version of three-dimensional constructs which makes up the living stuff of the a cell, was not passed down from previous cells, since this was the first cell. This is one (of many) show stopping problems that current evolutionary theory hardly even attempts to answer.

Science has a very poor understanding of how this serialized information gets properly folded into its functional three-dimensional form. This is a very difficult problem. If you would like to help in solving this difficult problem, visit: http://folding.stanford.edu/

BTW, the Bible's distinctive and definitive reference to man is that he is: "created in the image God." Not that he is "flesh" and "blood" (duh).

1. I am not an american and do not live in the US.

2. "That means absolutely nothing. How much recent is?"

Did you read the article I linked regarding the Hapmap? You can very accurately pinpoint ancestry by looking at a person's genome. This will, as the article points out, help forensic science, etc. a great deal.

3. "Without precise definitions and evidence backing it all, this "idea" is nothing more than wishful-thinking."

Again, did you read the article I linked regarding the subject of this entire post? It's not as if this is new, by the way - see for instance, from last year: "RACIAL GROUPINGS MATCH GENETIC PROFILES, STANFORD STUDY FINDS"

http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january/ racial-data.htm

4. "Do you anything about the world? Do you think this race centric view like in the US is the predominant everywhere? Do you think "black" in the US is the same as "black" in Africa or anywhere else?"

No, not entirely, of course - all designations and symbols used by human beings are non-discrete to some degree. Just as one can claim that "there are no races", one can claim that "there are no tables" or that "there are no knives". Reality is, in essence, one big mess that humans then try to make some sense out of using designations and symbols applied to different observed structures - it's in our nature to do so.

As the research above makes clear, however, the concept of "race" is not useless, as it can provide information even at a very high level of abstraction, I.e. "black", "white", etc. Thus, I believe it is a mistake to discount the concept of race - usefulness and the ability to convey information is after all the acid test for whether a concept is valid or not.

"What? If they self-identify didn't they provide the data previously? How sorting records would be difficult to a computer!?"

The computer does not use their self-identification, only their genetic profile. Only after the computer have sorted the subjects by genome is self-identification used to compare genetics to self-identification. See the link above.

"Nonsense. Hispanic is a marketing definition created in the US for americans, used to select meals by the number, to be able to deal with the latin american diversity. It's not used anywhere else!"

That was precicely my point.

Not to mention the fact that it is a common practice in our society to not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Rumor has it that that is a Greek saying. The Trojans have a slightly different view.

"Either God has gone out of his way to leave little trace of his existence, save for that found in ancient books of dubious objectivity"

You personally established this as a fact, or are your relying upon people you trust? Or is it a mere assumption?

The reason I ask, is because I see evidence of a Supreme Being in all of this natural universe. Scientific evidence, starting with the laws of thermodynamics. You see, if you start where you are, you can clearly see that there is FUNCTION throughout the universe.

Mind you, you won't get this from churchianity's version of Genesis, but it is there. "It was very good" literally means "functional", and not "good" in the sense of good/evil. But what the hell do I know, I'm a wacko nutjob.

I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice. - Albert Einstein

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuot es.html

• Aura (atmospheric science) - launched in 2004 http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/
• CALIPSO (atmospheric science) - launched in 2006 http://www-calipso.larc.nasa.gov/
• Gravity Probe B (relativity experiment) - launched in 2004 http://einstein.stanford.edu/
• Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys (space science) - launched in 2002 on servicing mission 3B http://sm3b.gsfc.nasa.gov/
• Spitzer Space Telescope (space science) - launched in 2003 http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/
• Swift (space science) - launched in 2004 http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html/

They claim to get "Supercomputer speeds" out of the PS3 - can anyone confirm this? How many points-per-day can it really do?

AFAIK, any copying of copywrited work in a commercial setting violates copywright.

Ugh. Rule of thumb: if you don't even know how to spell something, then you are completely clueless about it.

There's plenty of copying you can do in a commercial setting without violating copyright. This is a decent overview of fair use. Whether or not something is used commercially is a factor, but it's by no means the only one.

Please, in future, if you are so unfamiliar with something that you don't know how to spell it, then just be quiet. You're ruining the signal:noise ratio.

MGM won grokster b/c of the latter's active inducement. Cuban is well aware that Gootube is not actively inducing infringement; quite the opposite. He is therefore doing his damnedest to expand the grokster decision beyond its actual holding, and to profit from the expansion, at the expense of the users.

the Supreme Court's Grokster opinion, properly interpreted, strikes an appropriate balance. It preserved secondary liability as a powerful tool against copyright infringement. At the same time, it declined to adopt theories of liability, offered by the content industry, that would have overturned or pared back the rule established in the 1984 Sony Betamax case that protects distributors of products with substantial noninfringing uses
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Perspectives/06_STLR _3/CDT-grokster.pdf

I don't need to "read the article"

Glad that your memory is better than mine!

That's interesting. I always thought that Motorola 6502s were just a second-source on the chip - one of more than a dozen second-sources. They certainly didn't sell any that I ever saw, presumably preferring instead to push their own 6800/6802/6809 (now THAT was a nice 8-bitter!)

Here's another article for you to not read ;-) It doesn't mention that Moto got "the right to build them, with little or no royalty to MOS Technology", merely a dropping of the 6800-pin-compatible 6501, plus a $200K payment to Motorola. I must confess that I haven't read all of On the Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore", but I did read the bits about MOS Technology (remember that Commodore owned them from 1976 on), and no mention is made of reduced-royalty manufacturing rights being ceded to Motorola as a result of the 6501 lawsuit. (Moto were also miffed that the 6520 PIA was an almost exact copy of their 6820, but they let that one slide as it wasn't a CPU.) That book, btw, is quite entertaining, if a tad long. Did you know that Bill Mensch did the 6501 chip layout by hand (no CAD systems back then!) and got it working first time? Amazing. Sometimes it takes me two attempts to tie my shoelaces! Plus they had some 10MHz 6502s running in 1976. Yes, ten megahertz.

Anyway, enough of my wafflings - this has been a good trip down memory lane :-)

And how do you protect Warden from it itself being hacked? You design it kind of like a root kit--that is the user shouldn't be able to alter or disable Warden & they lose the domain over that tiny bit of functionality of their hard drive.

The irony of it all? The fact that a talented programmer with burp or some other styled network tool and use linux on a routing box to intercept packets and change them to give him position hacks.

Running a web crawler is a challenging task. There are tricky performance and reliability issues and even more importantly, there are social issues. Crawling is the most fragile application since it involves interacting with hundreds of thousands of web servers and various name servers which are all beyond the control of the system.

In order to scale to hundreds of millions of web pages, Google has a fast distributed crawling system. A single URLserver serves lists of URLs to a number of crawlers (we typically ran about 3). Both the URLserver and the crawlers are implemented in Python. Each crawler keeps roughly 300 connections open at once. This is necessary to retrieve web pages at a fast enough pace. At peak speeds, the system can crawl over 100 web pages per second using four crawlers. This amounts to roughly 600K per second of data. A major performance stress is DNS lookup. Each crawler maintains a its own DNS cache so it does not need to do a DNS lookup before crawling each document. Each of the hundreds of connections can be in a number of different states: looking up DNS, connecting to host, sending request, and receiving response. These factors make the crawler a complex component of the system. It uses asynchronous IO to manage events, and a number of queues to move page fetches from state to state.

It turns out that running a crawler which connects to more than half a million servers, and generates tens of millions of log entries generates a fair amount of email and phone calls. Because of the vast number of people coming on line, there are always those who do not know what a crawler is, because this is the first one they have seen. Almost daily, we receive an email something like, "Wow, you looked at a lot of pages from my web site. How did you like it?" There are also some people who do not know about the robots exclusion protocol, and think their page should be protected from indexing by a statement like, "This page is copyrighted and should not be indexed", which needless to say is difficult for web crawlers to understand. Also, because of the huge amount of data involved, unexpected things will happen. For example, our system tried to crawl an online game. This resulted in lots of garbage messages in the middle of their game! It turns out this was an easy problem to fix. But this problem had not come up until we had downloaded tens of millions of pages. Because of the immense variation in web pages and servers, it is virtually impossible to test a crawler without running it on large part of the Internet. Invariably, there are hundreds of obscure problems which may only occur on one page out of the whole web and cause the crawler to crash, or worse, cause unpredictable or incorrect behavior. Systems which access large parts of the Internet need to be designed to be very robust and carefully tested. Since large complex systems such as crawlers will invariably cause problems, there needs to be significant resources devoted to reading the email and solving these problems as they come up.

You forgot that North Korea also has the "World's Best Golfer". Stand aside Tiger; Kim Jong is here. Palmer? You suck next to Kim Jong. Yellow jacket? We don't need no yellow jacket. We've got red nuclear missiles, or at least missile shells with nuclear logos painted on them.

Just put couple thousand GPU to work and you'll have your 100 TFLOPS:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= osstats

Btw: The FAH released a 64-bit SMP FAH clients today:
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-SMP.html
Sorry, only for MacOS X and Linux.

Just put couple thousand GPU to work and you'll have your 100 TFLOPS:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= osstats

Btw: The FAH released a 64-bit SMP FAH clients today:
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-SMP.html
Sorry, only for MacOS X and Linux.

Wait... I know you - you're Don Knuth!

(linkified because there's bound to be someone out there who just doesn't get it)

Uh, ok. I like your pragmatic attitude, but I think "global warming" is too much of a generalization for intelligent evaluation.

Here's how I tend to start sorting it out:

1. Some people claim that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing.
2. Some people claim that if the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, there will be unwanted effects or consequences.
3. A problem is defined as the discrepancy between what is and what is desired.
4. If the average temperature of the Earth is truly increasing, and if this produces unwanted effects, then those who do not want the effects have a problem.
5. Every problem has a specific identity, location and timing, and all three of these elements have a scope.
6. Every effect has a cause. A cause is something necessary and sufficient to explain the effect. Some causes are complex, meaning that multiple events might be necessary or depend on each other for the production of the effect. Some causes are unknown and cannot be completely uncovered. A cause is not a cause unless it can account for the identity, location and timing of the problem, and accounts for the scope of all three elements.
7. The problem is solved when there is no longer a discrepancy between what is desired and what exists.
8. One route to solving the problem may be to alleviate a causal event, another may be to achieve your desired objective by adapting to the undesirable effect, and maybe a combination.
9. Some problems cannot be resolved on an individual basis, but require teamwork among like-minded individuals and communities.
10. Solving the problem may reveal or produce other problems. There is risk.

So, the pragmatic view would suggest that a person should determine if there is really a problem and if the problem is important (some problems aren't worth the time to solve), whether steps can be taken to adjust to the unwanted effect, and then enlist the aid of others to alleviate the consequences for a broader community. This may mean doing some real investigation to find causal relationships leading to the unwanted effect.

One reason I think the article is non-helpful is that it draws a conclusion of universal importance without sufficient completeness.

This sounds like a perfect test for a community of Protege-OWL users, right?
http://protege.stanford.edu/
http://www.co-ode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeO WLTutorial.pdf

I'm reminded of this article published not too long ago: http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2006/august/m anatee.html

You're not thinking this through very well, Tom St. Denis.

The SETI@Home project, which analyses data collected from Arecibo, pioneered Internet-based distributed computing employing the PCs of the general public. Since then, the know-how that went into that project has been used for many other distributed computing efforts.

Some of those efforts, such as the biological and medical research Folding@Home and FightAIDS@Home projects, surely fit your definition of "more vital science". And were it not for Arecibo, those research efforts would not have been possible.

Fish farming, particularly sea cage farming of saltwater species, has plenty of problems itself. The big five appear to be:

the wastes produced by farming
the fish that escape
the diseases and parasites that occur in farms
the chemicals used to treat diseased fish
the problems of stock depletion and contamination of feed.

See:

http://www.focs.ca/fishfarming/index.asp
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/july12/ fishfarms-712.html
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salm on/
http://www.westcoastaquatic.ca/article_fishfarms_p roblems_muchalat0205.htm

And many others.

What I find to be self evident is that the real issue is simply to many people, not enough planet.

Instead of speculating, why not just read all about the algorithms?

Main publications:
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearc h/ALIP/ACMMM06/
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch /ALIP/PAMI03/
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch /SIMPLIcity/TPAMI/

Instead of speculating, why not just read all about the algorithms?

Main publications:
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearc h/ALIP/ACMMM06/
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch /ALIP/PAMI03/
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch /SIMPLIcity/TPAMI/

Instead of speculating, why not just read all about the algorithms?

Main publications:
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearc h/ALIP/ACMMM06/
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch /ALIP/PAMI03/
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch /SIMPLIcity/TPAMI/

Games may not use it, but I'm sure somebody will.

Do these morons realize we are between ice ages?

That global warming is a good thing?

* Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people

* Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population

* Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct

* Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees'

* costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP and render large parts of the planet uninhabitable

Do they realize that the human contribution to global warming is f'ing negligible?

Are they even aware that oscillations of the Earth's orbit due to the other planets explain every Major Ice Age going back 1 million years with a period of about 100K years between ice ages?

Are they even aware that the Minor Ice Ages can be explained as forced by precession and nutation of the Earth's axis due to perturbation by the Sun and Moon?

Wikipedia is OK for most people on most subjects. However when you want information on a specialized topic it is better to find other sources. For example when I need to look up something about philosophy I go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy whose articles are contributed by people with PhDs about their area of expertise. It also has copious references on each topic. Such a source will always be better than wikipedia, at least if you need the most accurate information.