Are Firefox bookmark folders the same as spring loaded folders?
In FF2, you can drag a bookmark onto a folder of bookmarks, and it will open for you (oddly, you must enter from below), allowing you to drop into an exact position in the folder.
The bookmark you drag is the "first interface object". The folder contents are the "at least one additional interface object" that is presented when in proximity of the dragged bookmark. Each region between icons in the folder is an "additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated". Icons for nested folders are also drop targets (they themselves also open in the same way, but that's another level).
Is it a problem that the full extent of the folder is not "in proximity"? Maybe the first few items are, but the the ones at the end of a long folder certainly are not. Of course, the claim is only for "at least one additional... in proximity", so these extra ones don't matter I guess.
But it makes me think of a flower petal arrangement, where *all* the additional drop targets are proximate. Maybe that's really what they're trying to claim?
Gosh it's hard work to understand! (glad I'm not a patent attorney... unless I was paid by the hour...)
Isn't a launcher a kind of "drop target with which the first interface object may be associated"? It depends on the precise definition of "drop target" and "associated", I guess.
Ah, I see what you mean: in Windows, you can't *associate* with the interface object (task bar element) - it merely gives focus to that app (with which you can associate - but that's a different interface object). Also, the task bar (interface object) does not appear when you are in proximity.
I love how you parsed that. Less intimidating. Thank you.
However, patents are drafted with the most general claims first, then getting more specific. The strategy is that the first claim(s) may fail, but later ones are upheld. This enables the inventor to hedge their bets between too broad (and invalid) and too narrow (someone invents around their claim). It's arguing in the alternative, a (little) bit like a murderer saying (a) he didn't kill the victim; but (b) if he did it was an accident.
Anyway, the first claim (eg. the one that gets discussed here) might be far too general; and yet the patent be upheld, because of later claims.
To determine validity, you have to do careful parsing for all the claims. It's another source of uncertainty.:(
The pagerank patent discusses the prior art, and this was a new idea. Citations had been used for ranking before, but not in this way.
I think someone would have challenged the patent, at least academically or informally (eg in a magazine or even a blog), if it "wasn't the first time".
BTW: I see what you mean: it's the random surfer that follows a markov process (pagerank calculates a probability distribution over it).
Google's page rank [...] it wasn't the first time that it was applied to that either. Really? If so, the Pagerank patent would have been challenged.
I think Pagerank is closer to calculating the steady state of energy flow through a circuit, than to Markov chains.
But maybe you are right - cites or it didn't happen.
They only simulated a neocortical column (about 10,000 neurons), not the whole neocortex.
It's also about 100 times slower than the real thing, according to TFA.
However, it doesn't say how they know it "behaves exactly like" a real one. Logically, I'd guess they'd stimulate a real one and record its behaviour, and then stimulate the simulation, and see if its behaviour is the same. But this seems very difficult to do in practice to me (IANAN), especially obtaining accurate measurements of so many densely packed microscopic neurons. And there seems to be no mention of empirical testing on the project website.
So, I'd guess they simulated something - but who knows exactly what that was. I'd love to be wrong about this.
Perhaps multi-cores will become specialized, along the lines of videocards, diskdrives and ADSL modems (which have their own CPUs these days); and the nascent physics card. This is a natural effect, and occurs in biology (organs in your body), and the size of commercial organizations.
Perhaps we can further divide up the tasks? Eg. caching, in the right way, can yield incredible performance benefits - so, perhaps a predictive caching processor?
Considering he was actively advertised "his program" (mine with my name and stuff backspaced) he got a lot more people to download it then I did even though mine was free.
Outrageous, and good on you for stopping it. It's interesting how advertising and charging helped more people than the free approach.
Reminds me of the "whole product" ("Crossing the Chasm") - all the extra stuff needed beyond the core "product" to actually solve the user's problem.
But how does Wordpress make money?
The price of a newspaper barely covers printing, distribution costs etc. It's not a profit centre.
For illustration, consider that when newspapers talk about "raising prices", they mean raising prices for advertisers, not for customers who buy the newspaper.
'Let a wish-fulfilling jewel be defined as a jewel that can create anything one wishes for, including things beyond the power of man to create. Since the design of such jewels is one of these wishes, a wish-fulfilling jewel could design even better jewels; there would then unquestionably be a 'wish-fulfilment explosion,' and the power of man would be left far behind.
Thus the first wish-fulfilling jewel is the last invention that man need ever make.'
> The underlying world contains much less self-congratulatory "humanity is so great, destined for so much" escapism and much more "look at what we're allowing to happen here, people".
Yes, science fiction is escapism in that it abstracts problems, and thus clarifies. It's a fable or philosophical tract. eg Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. I agree about the underlying world often being positive (which is optimistic and hopeful). Yet the foreground story is often a dire warning about amazing new tech. eg. Frankenstein's monster. eg. A Fire upon the Deep has a theme of humility: be you ever so high, there are higher Powers.
But Rainbow's End isn't a fable and doesn't make a philosophical point (IMHO anyway). heh, I guess the title itself is a little pessimistic...
I agree with your point from William Gibson. Here's a real, current example of a tooth decay cure:
Tooth decay is mostly caused by sucrose, which bacteria process to acid, which attacks the tooth (tooth decay is dramatically lower in ancient skulls, pre-sucrose, and in primitive societies without access to sucrose - this changes when they do get access). Fructose, lactose and other sugars etc aren't processed in this way - it seems that humanity and our bacteria evolved to coexist over time, and refined sucrose is simply too new. So... the cure is a genetically modified version of the same bacteria that doesn't produce the acid. It fills the same niche in the mouth, so won't displace anything else; and produces an antiseptic, which kills rival bacteria in that niche. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_caries#Bacteri a
I can see scope for drama in this scenario... but admit it: tooth decay immunity would be awesome!
Vernor Vinge deserves another Nebula (many!). But not for Rainbow's End, IMHO.
It has space opera/Hollywood depth of science/technology, whereas his earlier work addressed interesting questions (eg. of identity, in the Tines, and in Pham's godshatter in a Fire upon the Deep). Rainbow's End lacks the particular "strangeness" and humour of science fiction - no aliens to illuminate the human condition from a new perspective; no fundamentally new science or technology to invert our ideas. It's pretty straightforward extrapolation.
Maybe it really is written for Hollywood?
an alternative to ignoring or contradicting is...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
...to promote an incompatible belief.
This is also how to train animals - instead of punishing the "wrong" behaviour, you reward the "right" behaviour. If there is no "right" behaviour, just pick one that is incompatible with the "wrong" behaviour, and reward that. The similarity between human and animal behaviour is not surprising, since this is an animal aspect of our intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Rival scientists renewed their bid for a "spy ball", as smaller, more agile and capable of greater velocity.
"A spy bat", they explained, "is a stupid idea. Not very stealthy at all. We really don't know how those guys got the contract in the first place."
your sig hurts
god *is* the unknown.
Man is finite; god is infinite.
god is mysterious and uncontrollable, beyond us and above us.
Robot Plans to Track Weather and Climate
Talk about intentionality
Are Firefox bookmark folders the same as spring loaded folders?
... in proximity", so these extra ones don't matter I guess.
In FF2, you can drag a bookmark onto a folder of bookmarks, and it will open for you (oddly, you must enter from below), allowing you to drop into an exact position in the folder.
The bookmark you drag is the "first interface object". The folder contents are the "at least one additional interface object" that is presented when in proximity of the dragged bookmark. Each region between icons in the folder is an "additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated". Icons for nested folders are also drop targets (they themselves also open in the same way, but that's another level).
Is it a problem that the full extent of the folder is not "in proximity"? Maybe the first few items are, but the the ones at the end of a long folder certainly are not. Of course, the claim is only for "at least one additional
But it makes me think of a flower petal arrangement, where *all* the additional drop targets are proximate. Maybe that's really what they're trying to claim?
Gosh it's hard work to understand! (glad I'm not a patent attorney... unless I was paid by the hour...)
Isn't a launcher a kind of "drop target with which the first interface object may be associated"? It depends on the precise definition of "drop target" and "associated", I guess.
Ah, I see what you mean: in Windows, you can't *associate* with the interface object (task bar element) - it merely gives focus to that app (with which you can associate - but that's a different interface object). Also, the task bar (interface object) does not appear when you are in proximity.
I love how you parsed that. Less intimidating. Thank you.
:(
However, patents are drafted with the most general claims first, then getting more specific. The strategy is that the first claim(s) may fail, but later ones are upheld. This enables the inventor to hedge their bets between too broad (and invalid) and too narrow (someone invents around their claim). It's arguing in the alternative, a (little) bit like a murderer saying (a) he didn't kill the victim; but (b) if he did it was an accident.
Anyway, the first claim (eg. the one that gets discussed here) might be far too general; and yet the patent be upheld, because of later claims.
To determine validity, you have to do careful parsing for all the claims. It's another source of uncertainty.
it was the best of times :) it was the worst of times :(
The pagerank patent discusses the prior art, and this was a new idea. Citations had been used for ranking before, but not in this way.
I think someone would have challenged the patent, at least academically or informally (eg in a magazine or even a blog), if it "wasn't the first time".
BTW: I see what you mean: it's the random surfer that follows a markov process (pagerank calculates a probability distribution over it).
Many fatal diseases would disagree with you.
But maybe you are right - cites or it didn't happen.
It's also about 100 times slower than the real thing, according to TFA.
However, it doesn't say how they know it "behaves exactly like" a real one. Logically, I'd guess they'd stimulate a real one and record its behaviour, and then stimulate the simulation, and see if its behaviour is the same. But this seems very difficult to do in practice to me (IANAN), especially obtaining accurate measurements of so many densely packed microscopic neurons. And there seems to be no mention of empirical testing on the project website.
So, I'd guess they simulated something - but who knows exactly what that was. I'd love to be wrong about this.
Perhaps multi-cores will become specialized, along the lines of videocards, diskdrives and ADSL modems (which have their own CPUs these days); and the nascent physics card. This is a natural effect, and occurs in biology (organs in your body), and the size of commercial organizations.
Perhaps we can further divide up the tasks?
Eg. caching, in the right way, can yield incredible performance benefits - so, perhaps a predictive caching processor?
ANYTHING but parallelizing the unparallelizable.
Reminds me of the "whole product" ("Crossing the Chasm") - all the extra stuff needed beyond the core "product" to actually solve the user's problem. But how does Wordpress make money?
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of Science?
The price of a newspaper barely covers printing, distribution costs etc. It's not a profit centre.
For illustration, consider that when newspapers talk about "raising prices", they mean raising prices for advertisers, not for customers who buy the newspaper.
Then along comes the internet and they say "subscription model!"
scratches head
From article:
The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge
apart from the alternatives.
...do they?
'Let a wish-fulfilling jewel be defined as a jewel that can create anything one wishes for, including things beyond the power of man to create. Since the design of such jewels is one of these wishes,
a wish-fulfilling jewel could design even better jewels; there would then unquestionably be a 'wish-fulfilment explosion,' and the power of man would be left far behind.
Thus the first wish-fulfilling jewel is the last invention that man need ever make.'
Yes, science fiction is escapism in that it abstracts problems, and thus clarifies. It's a fable or philosophical tract. eg Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. I agree about the underlying world often being positive (which is optimistic and hopeful). Yet the foreground story is often a dire warning about amazing new tech. eg. Frankenstein's monster. eg. A Fire upon the Deep has a theme of humility: be you ever so high, there are higher Powers.
But Rainbow's End isn't a fable and doesn't make a philosophical point (IMHO anyway). heh, I guess the title itself is a little pessimistic...
I agree with your point from William Gibson. Here's a real, current example of a tooth decay cure:
I can see scope for drama in this scenario... but admit it: tooth decay immunity would be awesome!Vernor Vinge deserves another Nebula (many!). But not for Rainbow's End, IMHO.
It has space opera/Hollywood depth of science/technology, whereas his earlier work addressed interesting questions (eg. of identity, in the Tines, and in Pham's godshatter in a Fire upon the Deep). Rainbow's End lacks the particular "strangeness" and humour of science fiction - no aliens to illuminate the human condition from a new perspective; no fundamentally new science or technology to invert our ideas. It's pretty straightforward extrapolation.
Maybe it really is written for Hollywood?
...to promote an incompatible belief.
This is also how to train animals - instead of punishing the "wrong" behaviour, you reward the "right" behaviour. If there is no "right" behaviour, just pick one that is incompatible with the "wrong" behaviour, and reward that. The similarity between human and animal behaviour is not surprising, since this is an animal aspect of our intelligence.