Still, the brute force approach - where you examine every single possible path - will always do at least as well as, and probably often beat any "algorithmic" or heuristic search. (Given unlimited resources.)
That's why we should be investing in ways to increase resources, instead of wasting time with clever little algorithmic solutions that ultimately will be less successful than the brute force approach...
In a perfect world, no one would lack anything, so there would be no motivation to steal. And even if you wanted to steal for stealing's sake, what you stole could be easily replaced, so it wouldn't hurt the person you stole it from anyway.
Yes, there is a chance an asteroid will hit us. There's also a chance black hole will spring up next to us and suck us in. There's even a tiny chance that the sun will extinguish itself leaving us with the task of trying to reignite it.
Do you mind if we deal with the possible crises in the order of their likelihood of occurring?
But, I think that research with world-spanning possibilities (cancer or AIDS cures, prevention of a "killer asteroid", etc.) should be funded by everyone, and the scientists should work for only a reasonable fee, and shouldn't use money as their primary motivating factor.
So, your position is that only those who market trivial consumer products should be able to make a lot of money?
If there was only a way technology could be used to solve big picture problems. Too often it solves the immediate needs at the expense of long term planning.
I think this is due more to human short-sightedness and greed than a problem with the technology itself.
It's sad that the cocky little bastards don't realize how much better their lives could be if the meek (and the geeks) were left in peace to develop the technological innovations that would rapidly make the average standard of living better than the best standard of living now...
People moderate on/. because it is a strong community which discusses lifelong interests. How many people (who may not be very familiar with web environments or communities in the first place) are going to moderate when all they wanted to do is ask how to get squirrels out of the attic.
I'm not sure about this. People are very quick to give their reactions in ordinary life, in my observations, to anything.
Also, I think you will find there will be those who take it upon themselves to become the "trusted users" of any discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet we could do a better job ourselves with collaborative filtering.
What about the multiverse theory?
Still, the brute force approach - where you examine every single possible path - will always do at least as well as, and probably often beat any "algorithmic" or heuristic search. (Given unlimited resources.)
That's why we should be investing in ways to increase resources, instead of wasting time with clever little algorithmic solutions that ultimately will be less successful than the brute force approach...
In a perfect world, no one would lack anything, so there would be no motivation to steal. And even if you wanted to steal for stealing's sake, what you stole could be easily replaced, so it wouldn't hurt the person you stole it from anyway.
My point exactly!
Yes, there is a chance an asteroid will hit us. There's also a chance black hole will spring up next to us and suck us in. There's even a tiny chance that the sun will extinguish itself leaving us with the task of trying to reignite it.
Do you mind if we deal with the possible crises in the order of their likelihood of occurring?
Doesn't it make sense to cover as many different threats as possible?
Imagine: we finally solve all or most of the earth's problems that we have control over. But then an asteroid hits and it's all for naught.
What's wrong with concurrent develpment of solutions to possible threats?
But, I think that research with world-spanning possibilities (cancer or AIDS cures, prevention of a "killer asteroid", etc.) should be funded by everyone, and the scientists should work for only a reasonable fee, and shouldn't use money as their primary motivating factor.
So, your position is that only those who market trivial consumer products should be able to make a lot of money?
If there was only a way technology could be used to solve big picture problems. Too often it solves the immediate needs at the expense of long term planning.
I think this is due more to human short-sightedness and greed than a problem with the technology itself.
Still, you crotchety old man, if they have found the gene responsible, we could perhaps make use of it.
Couldn't a genetic mutation that spread more gradually (than the article claims) account for the facts as you provide them?
What other species consume magic mushrooms?
Nicely argued...ESP might still provide a speed advantage over spoken language, which could be important.
Also in a culture where lying is prevalent, esp might provide a significant survival advantage.
What if there is an easier way?
It's sad that the cocky little bastards don't realize how much better their lives could be if the meek (and the geeks) were left in peace to develop the technological innovations that would rapidly make the average standard of living better than the best standard of living now...
No good, I'll come in again.
I think they're using "browser" to mean basically the web page itself, not the software that lets you view the web page.
at least he didn't try to patent it...
Part of the problem is the patent office thinks it's supposed to be a business, trying to make a profit.
The more patents it grants the more applications it gets and the more money it earns.
It should view itself more as a civil service regulatory agency.
Yeah, private companies would never do something like this.
Yeah, let's not try to understand how epidemics spread, let's just appreciate it.
There can't be many things that are worse than being alone, without any form of human contact for many years
How about being stuck in society, forced to have face-to-face human contact without respite, for many years?
Well, I don't think so. Here's a test:
Take two cats with different genetic make-ups and put them in exactly the same environment.
Will they turn out the same?
Or: genetics determines the range of possible coat colors/patterns.
Given a specific cat's genes, one should (eventually) be able to predict the coat results in different environmental conditions.
(So it isn't really that nurture "wins"...)
People moderate on /. because it is a strong community which discusses lifelong interests. How many people (who may not be very familiar with web environments or communities in the first place) are going to moderate when all they wanted to do is ask how to get squirrels out of the attic.
I'm not sure about this. People are very quick to give their reactions in ordinary life, in my observations, to anything.
Also, I think you will find there will be those who take it upon themselves to become the "trusted users" of any discussion.