Nothing really to add to this, except how pissed off I am that I have to make a content-free post and undo ALL my mods in this thread because my finger slipped and I modded this "Troll" instead of "Insightful". Really, Slashdot, how many years is it going to take to get that idiotic misfeature fixed?
Of course, it's more likely that smartphones will simply continue to implement their current version of the First Law: "A smartphone may not reduce its service provider's profits, or through inaction allow its server provider's profits to be reduced."
EM waves have frequency and polarization and phase. Their "orbital angular momentum" is some combination of these parameters so you can't increase bandwidth over what can be done using some combination of these.
That was my take on this the first time I heard about it -- although my breakdown was E and M magnitude and direction. But the further discussions I read, and now this demonstration, seem to indicate otherwise.
BTW, frequency and phase aren't exactly independent, are they?
You're quibbling over symbology, while missing the important distinctions.
At the most trivial level, just about all programming is "graphical". Characters are symbols. A two-dimensional array of symbols is a graphic. You don't think of it as a graphic, but there it is, right there on your display.
If you've got a graphical language that lets you drag colorful boxes around, snap them together, and watch them twinkle contentedly as the program executes, how exactly is that different from using text? If it's "less rich" -- if there are constructs available in a "conventional language" that aren't available in the graphical language -- then we can discuss the graphical language's particular deficits, and perhaps correct them.
...the strong emphasis on mathematics and science during the Soviet era. Just throw in a bit of Lysenkoism to carry its fruits into the current generation, and presto, world dominance!
That would be great, but I don't think another 17-inch model is in the cards. A shame -- I've hungered for resolution like this for decades, and now that it's here, presbyopia will keep me from taking full advantage of it.
She's afforded more than most of us because she's ambitious, she's got good political skills, and she's at the Media Lab. None of these are entirely unrelated to good looks, and they're certainly related to one another. But if I really wanted to pick away at an "unfair advantage", I think I'd start with the Media Lab position -- and, for all the gripes I have about the Lab, it's not exactly a place that coddles the incompetent.
...because we love hearing not only the clamor for new features, but also:
"Why won't you run on commodity hardware? I can get a system that does everything yours does, plus more [including things others make it do against my will], for half the price!"
"Why is your system so much slower? Every benchmark shows that other systems can do X in a quarter of the time [leaving the other 75% for executing malware]."
"Why does your system make it such a PITA for me to do this simple operation, when all the other systems let me [or any unauthenticated user] do it with a few simple lines of code?"
I've always wondered why they haven't studied insect brains. Flies do way more complex things than any robot so far invented, and would surely be easier to understand than the workings of a mammal brain.
I've never, ever, not even once seen anyone driving at the prescribed safe distance.
I see it all the time. Just look for the person everybody's cutting in front of. Of course, he can only maintain that safe distance for short intervals before the next "above-average driver" cuts in and brakes...
Agreed, excepting that N meters is rarely "minimum safe distance" in practice. At 60Kph on the 2 second rule, that would be 33 meters which would hardly make most people feel "cut up" if you slot a 5 meter car into it. And I never see "safe" drivers leaving that kinda gap; that might encourage someone to fill it!
First, apologies if I'm misunderstanding you -- I'm not sure what you mean by "cut up" here.
Whatever gap you feel is safe, inserting another car doesn't simply subtract 5 meters from the gap -- unless the inserting driver can safely follow the car in front of you with a 0-meter gap. No, most likely he cuts in as close to the car in front of you as he can, then brakes to increase his distance from that car, forcing you to brake as well.
In fact, since you only respond to his action after your own reaction delay, you have to brake more abruptly than he did, or else brake longer while tolerating an even shorter following distance. Multiply that effect as it propagates backward through the line of people who are all following at "realistic" rather than "safe" distances, and you get an amplification that eventually leads to dead stops, or collisions.
I'm not sure what to make of "enforcing your own theories... through passive aggressive driving". I've got my own theories, but it's physics that does the enforcement.
On the other hand the people that have to "let passing cars in" are tailgating, or if the lead vehicle is going so slowly that they're not tailgating then it should be pulling over to let them all pass.
Let N meters be the minimum safe following distance at the speed of the cars being passed.
Let one of those cars be following another at N meters distance. By definition, this is a safe following distance, and that car is not tailgating.
Now, let another car cut in between them. That car is now following the one in front at less than N meters distance, so it's tailgating, and the car behind it is following it at less than N meters distance, so that car is tailgating, too -- through no fault of its own -- unless it "slows down to let the passing car in".
"Safe driving" does not mean "everybody else get the hell out of my way".
I'm sure you're very proud that you read above 2nd grade level, but when you get to seventh or eighth grade, you'll find that your teachers call this a "run-on sentence", and penalize you for writing such sentences yourself. They'll also point out that "US Justice Department has sent letter" is missing an article.
One intriguing example is using a person wired up to measure brain response to identify objects of interest to the military in satelite imagery. These are very high resolution images and take a long time to analyze using normal means. But you can use the pattern recognition powers of the unconscious mind to speed up the process without compromising accuracy. One image is cut up into many smaller images and these are then shown in rapid sucession to the analyst. Some images trigger neural patterns which are associated with interest, object recognition and so on. These images are then set aside and further analyzed using traditional methods including brute force human scanning of the images. Accuracy stays good and output is increased.
...until the surveillance targets find out, and start papering the landscape with centerfold pictures as decoys.
Considering how much more capable even an average person's brain is than any computer we can build today, this is a bit silly.
The average person is also "more capable" than a tanker truck, but I know which one I'd prefer if I needed to move 5,000 gallons of liquid across the state.
Enhancing the brain by waking some of the ~90% which is unused would almost certainly yield more practical results.
Which 90% would that be?
Consider the numerous, very complicated instructions the brain is able to run just to walk, ride a bike, or breathe. If we can gain conscious control over that kind of functionality, we'd be formidable.
If you gained conscious control over that particular functionality, you'd probably die in short order. Especially if you were trying to multitask.
There are a lot of things that the brain does very well. There are a lot of things the brain presently does better than any computer -- but that list is getting shorter every day. More to the point, computer capabilities are improving much faster than human capabilities. TFA suggests one way to take advantage of this.
Slashdot Mirror
...on both the Python and the prey?
Nothing really to add to this, except how pissed off I am that I have to make a content-free post and undo ALL my mods in this thread because my finger slipped and I modded this "Troll" instead of "Insightful". Really, Slashdot, how many years is it going to take to get that idiotic misfeature fixed?
...so we need only sit With Folded Hands.
Of course, it's more likely that smartphones will simply continue to implement their current version of the First Law: "A smartphone may not reduce its service provider's profits, or through inaction allow its server provider's profits to be reduced."
EM waves have frequency and polarization and phase. Their "orbital angular momentum" is some combination of these parameters so you can't increase bandwidth over what can be done using some combination of these.
That was my take on this the first time I heard about it -- although my breakdown was E and M magnitude and direction. But the further discussions I read, and now this demonstration, seem to indicate otherwise.
BTW, frequency and phase aren't exactly independent, are they?
Which actually makes sense, unlike the units in the summary.
You're quibbling over symbology, while missing the important distinctions.
At the most trivial level, just about all programming is "graphical". Characters are symbols. A two-dimensional array of symbols is a graphic. You don't think of it as a graphic, but there it is, right there on your display.
If you've got a graphical language that lets you drag colorful boxes around, snap them together, and watch them twinkle contentedly as the program executes, how exactly is that different from using text? If it's "less rich" -- if there are constructs available in a "conventional language" that aren't available in the graphical language -- then we can discuss the graphical language's particular deficits, and perhaps correct them.
File: Open File...
You're welcome.
I think somebody had another English-metric goof when they were doing their stoichiometry.
(CF2)n -> 24% carbon, 76% fluorine by mass, at least by my calculations.
...the strong emphasis on mathematics and science during the Soviet era. Just throw in a bit of Lysenkoism to carry its fruits into the current generation, and presto, world dominance!
That would be great, but I don't think another 17-inch model is in the cards. A shame -- I've hungered for resolution like this for decades, and now that it's here, presbyopia will keep me from taking full advantage of it.
Oh, for God's sake.
She's afforded more than most of us because she's ambitious, she's got good political skills, and she's at the Media Lab. None of these are entirely unrelated to good looks, and they're certainly related to one another. But if I really wanted to pick away at an "unfair advantage", I think I'd start with the Media Lab position -- and, for all the gripes I have about the Lab, it's not exactly a place that coddles the incompetent.
...because we love hearing not only the clamor for new features, but also:
"Why won't you run on commodity hardware? I can get a system that does everything yours does, plus more [including things others make it do against my will], for half the price!"
"Why is your system so much slower? Every benchmark shows that other systems can do X in a quarter of the time [leaving the other 75% for executing malware]."
"Why does your system make it such a PITA for me to do this simple operation, when all the other systems let me [or any unauthenticated user] do it with a few simple lines of code?"
I've always wondered why they haven't studied insect brains. Flies do way more complex things than any robot so far invented, and would surely be easier to understand than the workings of a mammal brain.
Um, they kinda do. Really, really hard, in fact.
This is the sort of thing we need to see real progress in neural integration.
I've never, ever, not even once seen anyone driving at the prescribed safe distance.
I see it all the time. Just look for the person everybody's cutting in front of. Of course, he can only maintain that safe distance for short intervals before the next "above-average driver" cuts in and brakes...
Agreed, excepting that N meters is rarely "minimum safe distance" in practice. At 60Kph on the 2 second rule, that would be 33 meters which would hardly make most people feel "cut up" if you slot a 5 meter car into it. And I never see "safe" drivers leaving that kinda gap; that might encourage someone to fill it!
First, apologies if I'm misunderstanding you -- I'm not sure what you mean by "cut up" here.
Whatever gap you feel is safe, inserting another car doesn't simply subtract 5 meters from the gap -- unless the inserting driver can safely follow the car in front of you with a 0-meter gap. No, most likely he cuts in as close to the car in front of you as he can, then brakes to increase his distance from that car, forcing you to brake as well.
In fact, since you only respond to his action after your own reaction delay, you have to brake more abruptly than he did, or else brake longer while tolerating an even shorter following distance. Multiply that effect as it propagates backward through the line of people who are all following at "realistic" rather than "safe" distances, and you get an amplification that eventually leads to dead stops, or collisions.
I'm not sure what to make of "enforcing your own theories... through passive aggressive driving". I've got my own theories, but it's physics that does the enforcement.
On the other hand the people that have to "let passing cars in" are tailgating, or if the lead vehicle is going so slowly that they're not tailgating then it should be pulling over to let them all pass.
Let N meters be the minimum safe following distance at the speed of the cars being passed.
Let one of those cars be following another at N meters distance. By definition, this is a safe following distance, and that car is not tailgating.
Now, let another car cut in between them. That car is now following the one in front at less than N meters distance, so it's tailgating, and the car behind it is following it at less than N meters distance, so that car is tailgating, too -- through no fault of its own -- unless it "slows down to let the passing car in".
"Safe driving" does not mean "everybody else get the hell out of my way".
Now that Usenet is fading into history, is He monitoring the Slashdot feed? We'll see.
That's how open your source should be.
...although, now that I think about it, you can get in trouble for flushing unapproved content.
Sure, but remember to be careful with your remaining eye.
I'm sure you're very proud that you read above 2nd grade level, but when you get to seventh or eighth grade, you'll find that your teachers call this a "run-on sentence", and penalize you for writing such sentences yourself. They'll also point out that "US Justice Department has sent letter" is missing an article.
...on all those bribes, er, "campaign contributions".
One intriguing example is using a person wired up to measure brain response to identify objects of interest to the military in satelite imagery. These are very high resolution images and take a long time to analyze using normal means. But you can use the pattern recognition powers of the unconscious mind to speed up the process without compromising accuracy. One image is cut up into many smaller images and these are then shown in rapid sucession to the analyst. Some images trigger neural patterns which are associated with interest, object recognition and so on. These images are then set aside and further analyzed using traditional methods including brute force human scanning of the images. Accuracy stays good and output is increased.
...until the surveillance targets find out, and start papering the landscape with centerfold pictures as decoys.
Considering how much more capable even an average person's brain is than any computer we can build today, this is a bit silly.
The average person is also "more capable" than a tanker truck, but I know which one I'd prefer if I needed to move 5,000 gallons of liquid across the state.
Enhancing the brain by waking some of the ~90% which is unused would almost certainly yield more practical results.
Which 90% would that be?
Consider the numerous, very complicated instructions the brain is able to run just to walk, ride a bike, or breathe. If we can gain conscious control over that kind of functionality, we'd be formidable.
If you gained conscious control over that particular functionality, you'd probably die in short order. Especially if you were trying to multitask.
There are a lot of things that the brain does very well. There are a lot of things the brain presently does better than any computer -- but that list is getting shorter every day. More to the point, computer capabilities are improving much faster than human capabilities. TFA suggests one way to take advantage of this.