[...]it's socially detrimental to have poorly enforced laws against common activities (whether it be piracy, drug possession, low speed limits, whatever) - it gives abusive authorities the ability to selectively enforce those laws against people they don't like for some reason. Then just imagine what you're advocating being actually enforced. That would collapse the legal system. How do you enforce the strict speed limits for instance?
One bit from the article:
Colossus was the first of the electronic digital machines to feature limited programmability. It was not, however, a fully general Turing-complete computer, even though Alan Turing worked at Bletchley Park. It was not then realized that Turing completeness was significant; most of the other pioneering modern computing machines were also not Turing complete (e.g. the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, the Harvard Mark I electro-mechanical relay machine, the Bell Labs relay machines (by George Stibitz et al), or the first designs of Konrad Zuse). The notion of a computer as a general purpose machine, as more than a calculator devoted to solving difficult but specific problems, would not become prominent for several years.
Let's say that they have detected it. Why would you show them how fast you can eliminate them?
In case of war, isn't it better to have an over confident enemy in front of you? But this exercise was surely meant to be at least a bit like a war. I mean virtual war, and here we go: as soon as something real was indeed detected (at least in your scenario), the whole exercise fell apart, because that was not suppose to happen, and next thing you know, the submarine was left to do whatever it wanted to do, like to surface near the aircraft (I have no clue whether they would allow such thing to happen if they actually detected it). Worst of all, if they really detected it, that only means that there was nothing spectacularly special about the submarine, but the exercise still failed on the PR level.
[...]I have long imagined there to be a Mad Magazine "Spy vs Spy" quality to the Cold War confrontations. But this is not a cold war confrontation. The Cold War is over, the US NAVY is, for all the practical purposes, there alone, and untouchable. Then a Chinese diesel-electric-whatever submarine
pops up in the middle of exercise of the battle fleet, undetected and, for all the practical purposes of the exercise, was able to hit the carrier despite all the escort and protection. That's the
story, it ain't exactly the Cold War kind, it's more like "What's going on?" kind of a story.
Another explanation, as you have offered, is that the Chinese sub captain panicked, and in so doing gave up some information of about Chinese capabilities that they might want to keep secret. So if they really tried to keep it secret, like really really secret (i have no idea how sophisticated these submarines are), but then happened what is usually called "the failure of human factor", then it seems that this Chinese captain was a bug in the whole simulation.
Quite a big bug. Or more like there were two big bugs, on both sides. Like in a real war. The simulation was then so successful, it even produced what was not possible to simulate.
Yesterday, when I got an email from my advisor. Thankfully, I had my iPhone at the ready and it was quite capable of opening the document. I was able to answer her question immediately and it made me look like I was really on top of things. I guess that makes me "insane." But then, what's wrong with having the full size keyboard to answer bosses e-mails? It might even improve the quality of the reply.
So is the T-mobile a F111 or can these problems be worked out? That's a lovely analogy. You Sir you have broken off from venerable car analogies and entered the next level!
Probably because it's not the heart of all these problems. The heart of all these problems is that a billion security-unaware people operate computers that are connected to the internet. "billion" still implies Microsoft.
Do you honestly think everyone switching to a different OS would solve the problem? Why all, why not let's say some, like half a billion of these security-unaware people switch to something else, that alone would surely reduce the problem a bit.
"Bird" is not a complete sentence, it does not assert or express anything; gesturing while pointing at a bird and saying "bird" may be taken to express the same proposition as "there exists a bird at that location", which can be true or false; but just the utterance "bird" cannot itself be true or false, and birds themselves cannot be true or false; only propositions about birds (which you could express by gestures and incomplete utterances) can be true or false. Just imagine the following situation:
A says: "There is this thing over there, flying."
B says: "Yes, I see it. What is it?"
A says: "Bird."
B says: "True. It is a bird."
In this scenario we have a sentence "Bird", and, this sentence could have a truth value in a sort of formalization that you, believe it or not, also give:
[...] to assert the something is to impress upon the listener or reader that in some sort of circumstances, some sort of phenomena would be observed; and if that is indeed the case, then it is possible in principle for someone in those circumstances to know whether or not what you said is true. So here we go, according to what you write, if the above described situation is of such kind, that B can observe and verify that it is indeed a bird what he sees and what A recognizes as a bird, well, then the sentence "Bird" is not only expressing something (as it of course always does), but it can also be
strictly true/false in your own scheme of things.
Let's quickly run over the temporal order of choices, of which you speak, made in the experiment:
1) Monkey choses among the candies, there are three, r,g,b that he prefers equally and more than others, i.e as you said P(r)=P(g)=P(b).
2) Experimentalist (not monkey) now choses these three monkey's favorites for further experimentation and, then, sets up monkey with the choice between, say, r and g.
3) Monkey is now to choose between r and b. This range of choices, the experimental setup, is, however, first and foremost enforced by the experimentalist. Anyhow, monkey continues to pick candies, leading to P1(r)>P1(b).
4) Experimentalist again changes the setup: now monkey chooses between g and b.
5) The rationalization of which you speak I would reinterpret now as: since the monkey remembers P(r)=P(g) and P1(r)>P1(b), monkey rationalizes, or, to be more precise, preconceives that P2(g)>P2(b), i.e that he would prefer g over b (monkey basically forms the law P2(g)>P2(b)).
6) Monkey then acts according to this law and picks g over b.
Where would this law come from? It can be any number of reasons. One, for instance, would be that monkey simply chooses the candy that is most often presented to him. That simple: the green is the most presented one, so monkey picks green (since, the implicit motivation would be that it wants to get as many favorite candies as he can get).
Monkey would thus postulate experimentalist's strategy as the one where experimentalist always gives him his favorite candies: if he sticks to the one that experimentalist gives him most often, he would get that one. The green candy becomes thus his favorite candy!
Some might say that top research journals must be pay-to-publish in order to retain editors who are experts in their field. However, this argument doesn't really hold that much weight in light of the Alan Sokal Affair [nyu.edu] in which a peer-reviewed journal published rubbish that was easily recognizable as rubbish to even the most casual reader. You got your fact wrong:
The journal in which Sokal published was not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, he refused to make revisions after editors asked him to do so.
Seriously, if you can break up a task into small chunks and process it faster than some computer can, WTF difference does it make if it fits your definition of some benchmark or other. Did the data get processed? (_) Yes (_) No Who cares if YOU define a supercomputer a certain anal way and decide it isn't fastest under XYZ criterion. Yes, you're right, up to a point. Let me illustrate a bit. The original post says:
The scientists are the first from Canada to use IBM's World Community Grid network of PCs and laptops with the power equivalent to one of the globe's top five fastest supercomputers. Now, that is not quite true: even if you can get certain number of FLOPS on this grid computer, it does not mean that those are the same FLOPS as those gotten on the conventional supercomputer, because the former depend on what you call "breaking into small chunks". Yes, it is anal, but you know, it is not call computer science for nothing. Let me put this other way:
Nobody else gives a shit if the data set is done. The question is: which data set?
Where on Earth does this idea come from that multicenter, multimillion-dollar research projects are run by idiots? Neither funding nor talent are in particularly short supply in the field of cancer research, and squeezing extra speed and power out of massive bioinformatic analyses is a hot area. [emphasize added
] So then all these multi-milion/talent/center/computer things and people are ultimately being run by some hotness of a hot area, the hot stuff itself,... hot air?
Now what's needed is a distributed computing client that is controlled by a room thermostat. No, really, I'm totally serious. Thanks for the clarification 'cause for a moment I did think you were joking.
[...] if X, then Y [...] [...]But we can estimate the probability of X (based on the current state of knowledge), and explore the consequences if X *does* occur.[...] Sure it's possible to explore the consequences of X being true, but it is not possible to estimate the probability of X being true.
The classic example is the Newtonian gravity: it surely felt as it is definitely true for quite a few years, but then it turned out not to be true at all. We could say it is approximately true, but with what probability? Does that even make sense to ask?
See, that's the thing: we don't evaluate games on the potential for sequels. We evaluate them on how much we enjoy playing the game itself, and for how long they stay enjoyable. I guess.that's why we're not in marketing.
Personally, I was never a huge fan of Pong, but Aquanoid and the like are essentially Pong and I found them great fun. I think Tetris may have them all beat, though. Okidok. But then, Elite was also fun for quite a while.
...every time I deconstruct a revolution, the same thing happens. I put it all back together, and there's one piece left over, and I can't figure out where it goes. So what would that piece be this time?
What I meant was that it is that there exists no reason what so ever that modern operating systems require at least 300 megabytes of RAM to render a basic GUI when a computer with 32 megs can do it *better* than that. Go ahead, try it some time, try and use a modern OS on 32 megs- see how far you get. Now try loading an old OS, not too old as to not be able to load whatever software you require and you will find that it runs faster on older platforms than it does a modern one. Fascinating isn't it? I don't know. On Linux you can run all kinds of window managers, from those that give you just a blank screen to begin with to those with 3d OpenGL swanky shit. So if you need to squeeze out as much of RAM/CPU as possible without going to console, you can do that to. What's however definitely fascinating is how even today I don't know of any simple scripting/programming of GUI. That cannot be that complicated to make it real simple, at least some decent functionality if not every single GUI feature.
"Google's US partners include Nextel and Sprint..."
Sprint and Nextel is one company. Sprint acquired Nextel. So the sentence is correct! No, not really: the sentence is
Google's US partners include Nextel and Sprint, but not AT&T nor Verizon. Unless AT&T acquired Verizon or vice-versa...
All he actually says is that someone gave him some statistics which supported his argument and he used them. Apparently other statistics are orders of magnitude different. His actual response (which is a scientifically-sensible one) is to ask why the statistics are so different. Where did he admit he got it wrong? Perhaps it would be more satisfying to you to say that he did not get it right?
He got it wrong, he was man enough to admit that he got it wrong. Why do you have to make such a big deal out of it? Yes, wrong like in a factor of 100 wrong.
Can You Feel Me?
Philips' SKIN Probes use biometric sensors and lighting to pick up on your feelings and make them visible. The Bubelle dress changes color depending on your mood. The Frisson bodysuit is covered with LEDs and fine copper hairs that light up when brushed or blown on.
Blinded by Light
The hunt for better non-lethal weaponry gained new urgency when several people died in recent years after being shocked by a Taser. The LED Incapacitator, funded by the Department of Homeland Security, is a novel alternative. When officers shine the flashlight-like device in a person's eyes, high-intensity LEDs, pulsating at varying rates, will make the suspect temporarily blind and dizzy.
Making the Car Chase Obsolete
High-speed chases may be money shots in Hollywood, but everywhere else they're just dangerous. The StarChase Pursuit Management System uses a laser-guided launcher mounted on the front grill of a cop car to tag fleeing vehicles with a GPS tracking device. Then the fuzz can hang back as real-time location data are sent to police headquarters.
Good Morning, Sunshine
Embedded with a grid of LEDs, it [pillow] uses nothing but light to wake you up. About 40 min. before reveille, the programmable foam pillow starts glowing, gradually becoming brighter, to simulate a natural sunrise. This helps set your circadian rhythm and ease you into the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a moment, he was saying "you can't emulate my MacBook Pro on my Palm Z22", which is definitely true.
Yeah, and people are talking about the cold war. What cold war? WWII!
I dunno, but from what you wrote I gather that you have an illusion that cell phones are made for people to have conversations.
Just imagine the following situation:
A says: "There is this thing over there, flying."
B says: "Yes, I see it. What is it?"
A says: "Bird."
B says: "True. It is a bird."
In this scenario we have a sentence "Bird", and, this sentence could have a truth value in a sort of formalization that you, believe it or not, also give: [...] to assert the something is to impress upon the listener or reader that in some sort of circumstances, some sort of phenomena would be observed; and if that is indeed the case, then it is possible in principle for someone in those circumstances to know whether or not what you said is true. So here we go, according to what you write, if the above described situation is of such kind, that B can observe and verify that it is indeed a bird what he sees and what A recognizes as a bird, well, then the sentence "Bird" is not only expressing something (as it of course always does), but it can also be strictly true/false in your own scheme of things.
Let's quickly run over the temporal order of choices, of which you speak, made in the experiment:
1) Monkey choses among the candies, there are three, r,g,b that he prefers equally and more than others, i.e as you said P(r)=P(g)=P(b).
2) Experimentalist (not monkey) now choses these three monkey's favorites for further experimentation and, then, sets up monkey with the choice between, say, r and g.
3) Monkey is now to choose between r and b. This range of choices, the experimental setup, is, however, first and foremost enforced by the experimentalist. Anyhow, monkey continues to pick candies, leading to P1(r)>P1(b).
4) Experimentalist again changes the setup: now monkey chooses between g and b.
5) The rationalization of which you speak I would reinterpret now as: since the monkey remembers P(r)=P(g) and P1(r)>P1(b), monkey rationalizes, or, to be more precise, preconceives that P2(g)>P2(b), i.e that he would prefer g over b (monkey basically forms the law P2(g)>P2(b)).
6) Monkey then acts according to this law and picks g over b.
Where would this law come from? It can be any number of reasons. One, for instance, would be that monkey simply chooses the candy that is most often presented to him. That simple: the green is the most presented one, so monkey picks green (since, the implicit motivation would be that it wants to get as many favorite candies as he can get).
Monkey would thus postulate experimentalist's strategy as the one where experimentalist always gives him his favorite candies: if he sticks to the one that experimentalist gives him most often, he would get that one. The green candy becomes thus his favorite candy!
Personally, I was never a huge fan of Pong, but Aquanoid and the like are essentially Pong and I found them great fun. I think Tetris may have them all beat, though. Okidok. But then, Elite was also fun for quite a while.
...every time I deconstruct a revolution, the same thing happens. I put it all back together, and there's one piece left over, and I can't figure out where it goes. So what would that piece be this time?Sprint and Nextel is one company. Sprint acquired Nextel. So the sentence is correct! No, not really: the sentence is Google's US partners include Nextel and Sprint, but not AT&T nor Verizon. Unless AT&T acquired Verizon or vice-versa...
Blinded by Light The hunt for better non-lethal weaponry gained new urgency when several people died in recent years after being shocked by a Taser. The LED Incapacitator, funded by the Department of Homeland Security, is a novel alternative. When officers shine the flashlight-like device in a person's eyes, high-intensity LEDs, pulsating at varying rates, will make the suspect temporarily blind and dizzy.
Making the Car Chase Obsolete High-speed chases may be money shots in Hollywood, but everywhere else they're just dangerous. The StarChase Pursuit Management System uses a laser-guided launcher mounted on the front grill of a cop car to tag fleeing vehicles with a GPS tracking device. Then the fuzz can hang back as real-time location data are sent to police headquarters.
Good Morning, Sunshine Embedded with a grid of LEDs, it [pillow] uses nothing but light to wake you up. About 40 min. before reveille, the programmable foam pillow starts glowing, gradually becoming brighter, to simulate a natural sunrise.
This helps set your circadian rhythm and ease you into the day.
WowWee's FlyTech Dragonfly!