Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China. Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?
Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.
Nuclear power is the way to go! The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.
Luddites the lot of them.
Obviously nuclear power hasn't solved the worlds energy problems yet and weather it will remains to be seen. Until then I'm all for researching all conceivable options - with the future uncertain few thigs are sure, but knowledge being power is pretty damn close. Oh, and I tire of fools who reject an idea just because that idea alone doesn't solve everything.
Tsubame at Tokyo Tech's also had GPU's for well over a year now, and though I'm not sure about the numbers we talk large scale (high on the top 500 list).
matrix multiplication in what amounts to (in practice) sub-linear time.
What? The GPU matrix multiplications are generally done in the straightforward O(n^3) fashion - you may divide this by something proportional to the number of cores available, but what you mean by "sub-linear" I can't imagine.
If 70% of earth is water and 80% of the land-area unpopulated only 6% of the impacts will be noticed (by common people), that's something like one every century. Of course metorites aren't equally likely to strike at any latitude (I guess) but this still seems like a decent enough estimate: one or two in a century. And half a century ago I think it unlikely anyone in the west would have heard about a meteorite impact in an African tribe-village, Siberian labour-camp or even Chinese rice plantation etc.
The problem is that real human being in economics can not be easily described by an equation - and when they can be, they quickly change their behavior based on that knowledge.
Despite popular belief, scientists are usually not stupid. Have you considered the possibility that maybe one or two of them through the centuries have gone through this train of thoughs before?
If my memory serves me, a Nash equilibrium is roughly defined as a state where no single player has any particular incentive to change their strategy - that means that if you change your strategy you loose more money. These states are considered important because if people somhow discover strategies corresponding to Nash-equilibria then to some extent they tend to end up in that state (anyone changing will loose money). The point (or one point) of the article was that those strategies may be very difficullt to find in some cases and therefore this doesn't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many other situations out there where this is still a very usefull approach.
...when you stuff your face with twice as much fat and fast carbs than what your body can process anyway, wriggling your fat around a bit and calling it exercise is like trying to empty a dam of water by scooping a bit of it manually over the edge (with a siphon).
... namely the "Renshai" stuff which is pretty low-level, unsophisticated fantasy for nerdy teenagers. His time is at least as well spent on this as on anything else. I'm surprised the estate would authorize such a person, aren't there any better choices around? But that said, I think this bashing of sequels is disproportional - they really can't take any value away from the originals unless you let them and though often fairly crappy they are usually less so than very many other worthless works out there. And besides, if you really, honestly, think you're not going to enjoy them then why the hell pick up the books or go to the movies in the first place?
The very first time ClearView encounters an exploit it closes the program and begins analyzing the binary, searching for a patch that could have stopped the error.
Think of how much bullshit would go out of business if people were to do the same thing (i.e. sit down and think it over) when presented with some unusual idea.
NOTE: Surprisingly this is MUCH easier than actually buying it on iTunes!!
This is the crucial point isn't it. We can argue about what system of IP is best for nurturing creativitybut there is no bloody getting around that obtaining legit software is a freakin' hustle. Don't try to blame this on "pirating" because that has nothing to do with it - it is a fundamental problem of most buisness models that are around. Really, if I could obtain legit software with the same ease and as little fear of getting scammed as when I (hypothetically) download something with a torrent, I would be a far heftier buyer. But as it is I have to click myself through painful processes, sign away my soul, and will in the end many times end up feeling cheated because of inferior products and shady marketing practices.
A governmental agency is supporting and distributing Linux and using subsidies to get people to buy it. But it's the Evil Communist Chinese. Oh no, what is a good China-hating Linux-loving Slashdot denizen to do?
Whine and bitch about how stupid the world is, of course. Maybe put in a little clever self-irony, a witticism or two - always keep an eye out for a "you insensitive clod" opportunity. Then click refresh repeatedly, fervently hope to be modded up to get illusions of being socially accepted.
I'm roughly aware of what you are writing. But supposing that there is some validity in those theories, what I'm protesting is not the theories themselves but many peoples supposition that they must lead to suspicious events such as meteorite strikes on the LHC etc. Using the principle of Occam's razor it seems more logical to me to think for instance: A, each time some effect manifests itself it will be in roughly the same way and B, the effect will be something much simpler than a meteor strike, e.g. we may discover that in circumstances that should produce a Boson by other theories there actually arises a strange field of some previously unknown kind that makes the creation impossible. That's simpler than trying to explain how a meteor suddenly smashed up the LHC.
I could believe that there was some strange time-travel-effects going on to prevent this poor Boson, but I can't imagine that it would establish itself as suspicious high-level events such as meteorite impacts or whatever "chance" events people are going on about. If it is happening I bet it is in the form of some new repulsive force that doesn't follow from other theories, or something basic like that. Something we will be able to measure and something we will probably be able to take advantage of.
Indeed - how about if we all just start to download the linux drivers from Nvidia once a day for a while? Make a cron job.. coming to think of it, maybe I will right away, hehe.
Not so sure - if enough monkeys play for enough time then statistically a couple of them are bound to be momentarily lucky. Banning them at that point would just be forcing them to quit while they are ahead. At the extreme, suppose you were to ban any player that was $5 ahead - you'd ban most people and loose $5 each time.
Of course there is a threshold were you ban enough real cheaters to pay for the "false positives". I'm just pointing out that it is not black and white - you have to assess the situation more carefully to say what the result will be.
The key observation is that a player who has been "just lucky" for a while is as likely to loose money in the future as any other sucker there.
After a little research I found that Google has at-least two levels of opt-out:
moderate, and complete.
Maybe the second one is for Murdoch.
I'm still a little unclear about weather you can opt-out of news but still be searchable, but then again in my experience "news" is just a slightly different way to list search results, limited to news. If you want to read the article you visit the site anyway!
Additionally, if you want to be on the web but not listed by google there is a "bots" file. Dunno if that works with news aggregation but there's probably some way for little guys like Rupy to opt-out.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China. Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?
Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment. Nuclear power is the way to go! The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.
Luddites the lot of them.
Obviously nuclear power hasn't solved the worlds energy problems yet and weather it will remains to be seen. Until then I'm all for researching all conceivable options - with the future uncertain few thigs are sure, but knowledge being power is pretty damn close. Oh, and I tire of fools who reject an idea just because that idea alone doesn't solve everything.
Tsubame at Tokyo Tech's also had GPU's for well over a year now, and though I'm not sure about the numbers we talk large scale (high on the top 500 list).
matrix multiplication in what amounts to (in practice) sub-linear time.
What? The GPU matrix multiplications are generally done in the straightforward O(n^3) fashion - you may divide this by something proportional to the number of cores available, but what you mean by "sub-linear" I can't imagine.
Yeah, people go on about M$ but their eViL pales compared to many telecom operators'.
no, just white and black stones.
If 70% of earth is water and 80% of the land-area unpopulated only 6% of the impacts will be noticed (by common people), that's something like one every century. Of course metorites aren't equally likely to strike at any latitude (I guess) but this still seems like a decent enough estimate: one or two in a century. And half a century ago I think it unlikely anyone in the west would have heard about a meteorite impact in an African tribe-village, Siberian labour-camp or even Chinese rice plantation etc.
The problem is that real human being in economics can not be easily described by an equation - and when they can be, they quickly change their behavior based on that knowledge.
Despite popular belief, scientists are usually not stupid. Have you considered the possibility that maybe one or two of them through the centuries have gone through this train of thoughs before?
If my memory serves me, a Nash equilibrium is roughly defined as a state where no single player has any particular incentive to change their strategy - that means that if you change your strategy you loose more money. These states are considered important because if people somhow discover strategies corresponding to Nash-equilibria then to some extent they tend to end up in that state (anyone changing will loose money). The point (or one point) of the article was that those strategies may be very difficullt to find in some cases and therefore this doesn't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many other situations out there where this is still a very usefull approach.
...when you stuff your face with twice as much fat and fast carbs than what your body can process anyway, wriggling your fat around a bit and calling it exercise is like trying to empty a dam of water by scooping a bit of it manually over the edge (with a siphon).
... namely the "Renshai" stuff which is pretty low-level, unsophisticated fantasy for nerdy teenagers. His time is at least as well spent on this as on anything else. I'm surprised the estate would authorize such a person, aren't there any better choices around? But that said, I think this bashing of sequels is disproportional - they really can't take any value away from the originals unless you let them and though often fairly crappy they are usually less so than very many other worthless works out there. And besides, if you really, honestly, think you're not going to enjoy them then why the hell pick up the books or go to the movies in the first place?
The very first time ClearView encounters an exploit it closes the program and begins analyzing the binary, searching for a patch that could have stopped the error.
Think of how much bullshit would go out of business if people were to do the same thing (i.e. sit down and think it over) when presented with some unusual idea.
From the referenced article:
NOTE: Surprisingly this is MUCH easier than actually buying it on iTunes!!
This is the crucial point isn't it. We can argue about what system of IP is best for nurturing creativitybut there is no bloody getting around that obtaining legit software is a freakin' hustle. Don't try to blame this on "pirating" because that has nothing to do with it - it is a fundamental problem of most buisness models that are around. Really, if I could obtain legit software with the same ease and as little fear of getting scammed as when I (hypothetically) download something with a torrent, I would be a far heftier buyer. But as it is I have to click myself through painful processes, sign away my soul, and will in the end many times end up feeling cheated because of inferior products and shady marketing practices.
A governmental agency is supporting and distributing Linux and using subsidies to get people to buy it. But it's the Evil Communist Chinese. Oh no, what is a good China-hating Linux-loving Slashdot denizen to do?
Whine and bitch about how stupid the world is, of course. Maybe put in a little clever self-irony, a witticism or two - always keep an eye out for a "you insensitive clod" opportunity. Then click refresh repeatedly, fervently hope to be modded up to get illusions of being socially accepted.
I'm roughly aware of what you are writing. But supposing that there is some validity in those theories, what I'm protesting is not the theories themselves but many peoples supposition that they must lead to suspicious events such as meteorite strikes on the LHC etc. Using the principle of Occam's razor it seems more logical to me to think for instance: A, each time some effect manifests itself it will be in roughly the same way and B, the effect will be something much simpler than a meteor strike, e.g. we may discover that in circumstances that should produce a Boson by other theories there actually arises a strange field of some previously unknown kind that makes the creation impossible. That's simpler than trying to explain how a meteor suddenly smashed up the LHC.
Albeit not as much fun.
I could believe that there was some strange time-travel-effects going on to prevent this poor Boson, but I can't imagine that it would establish itself as suspicious high-level events such as meteorite impacts or whatever "chance" events people are going on about. If it is happening I bet it is in the form of some new repulsive force that doesn't follow from other theories, or something basic like that. Something we will be able to measure and something we will probably be able to take advantage of.
Indeed - how about if we all just start to download the linux drivers from Nvidia once a day for a while? Make a cron job.. coming to think of it, maybe I will right away, hehe.
Not so sure - if enough monkeys play for enough time then statistically a couple of them are bound to be momentarily lucky. Banning them at that point would just be forcing them to quit while they are ahead. At the extreme, suppose you were to ban any player that was $5 ahead - you'd ban most people and loose $5 each time.
Of course there is a threshold were you ban enough real cheaters to pay for the "false positives". I'm just pointing out that it is not black and white - you have to assess the situation more carefully to say what the result will be.
The key observation is that a player who has been "just lucky" for a while is as likely to loose money in the future as any other sucker there.
Well if both the Corporations and the Republicans are against it it must be a good thing for the Public.
...I can have my veggies floating around in the freezer!
...to poke fun at.
After a little research I found that Google has at-least two levels of opt-out: moderate, and complete.
Maybe the second one is for Murdoch.
I'm still a little unclear about weather you can opt-out of news but still be searchable, but then again in my experience "news" is just a slightly different way to list search results, limited to news. If you want to read the article you visit the site anyway!
Additionally, if you want to be on the web but not listed by google there is a "bots" file. Dunno if that works with news aggregation but there's probably some way for little guys like Rupy to opt-out.
Oh my but the he wouldn't be paid would he?
...a slightly more annoying Office with slightly less functionality for free I'd use Open Office.
Oh wait, I do!
...you will get good laughs on youtube! Can't loose.
paperweight?