I don't see the problem. You can stop using the website, no? I only block adverts if they are flashing, noisy or make the page unusable (like the stupid flash ones that cover up the text before shrinking down). Other types of adverts I have no problem with and am happy to view to support my favourite sites.
The original GP2X(the predecessor to the Wiz) had an analog stick, although it was quite rubbish and got changed to a D-Pad in the later version(F-200). The pandora is almost complete and has dual analog controls of their own design (as well as a d-pad).
The choice I've made is never to work for a company that takes on government contracts... Which ends up being all those companies that make weapons.
I would have no qualms with working for a company making weapons and willing to sell them on an open market but not to governments using stolen money to buy weapons in order to steal more money from more people.
cameras mounted on every Wiimote are only 320x240, I believe.
actually they are 1024x768 and can capture very fast, but presumably it's mono only. There's also no way(in software) to get at the output of it, before it goes through the SOC that does blob detection.
What are you talking about? Everyone knows it's the terrorists. It's always been the terrorists. We will fight them with our allies: Canada, China and Russia.
There's a positive feedback loop here that's quite scary. You heat up the atmosphere a tiny bit, you get outgassings of greenhouse gases (CO2 from the oceans, methane from defrosting ice sheet in the north, gases released by dying wetlands) and that heats up the atmosphere more. Which releases more gases...
Such a feedback system should go out of control, unless there is also a separate negative feedback component in the system that has a stronger effect than the positive feedback component. The data shows that both CO2 and temperature go in cycles, which would indicate, assuming that there IS a positive feedback effect, that a stronger negative feedback component is keeping it somewhat at an equilibrium.
This is my main problem with the whole area, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I'm not a climatologist, and that I quite possibly am wrong, but my area is in artificial intelligence, of which dynamic feedback systems plays a large role. The world is a massively complicated system of multiple feedback loops. With such a complex system there really is no hope of developing accurate models for how it will behave under various stimuli, at least, not without many many more years of studying it in real time. By all means continue research, continue studying, get the best models we can, but leave draconian governmental regulation until we are sure that we are not putting a huge unnecessary burden on our world economy.
And you're right, I don't cite it as a counter argument to AGW, more to counter Al Gore's primary argument(which is the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice cores), which unfortunately is the media-friendly face of the science on this matter, which is therefore the extent of the public's and the political knowledge of the subject.
Read the paper(http://www.quickfilepost.com/download.do?get=1a838a6813c6da4fdcf6aa66145adb66). The fact that "timing is not accurately known" is the motivation for the work they did.
No-one's disputing that there's a relationship, but the ice core readings show that CO2 rise comes a few hundred years after the temperature rise.
So yes, the sceptics do question the relationship; not whether there is or isn't a relationship, but whether it means what is most commonly reported as fact.
Because I let my emotions get the better of me and didn't want that to affect my karma:) my apologies. I'll be civil.
I stand by my points though. There really isn't any proof that there has been an "unprecedented rate of change" recently.
Temperature has fluctuated throughout the ages, and not because of carbon dioxide(there is a correlation, but the CO2 levels change after the temperature), and we haven't reached anything close to the top or bottom of the ranges that the world has been in in the past.
Now, I realise that people don't want to have to deal with global change, but the world is a damn complex system... there is absolutely no way to know how our actions affect it exactly, nor what we should change that will improve the situation for us.
Now I totally support reducing(through social and economic means, not through government regulation) pollution, nastiness in our atmosphere, things that statistically show that people who are exposed to it have shorter lives. But CO2 doesn't have any negative effects to our bodies, nor is there any statistically significant evidence to show that it has an effect on the world, except perhaps to allow more trees to grow.
There's my more reasoned points. Perhaps you can understand a bit better.
Some people are looking into the living on the seas idea. They've got some good ideas and plans but they're quite expensive ideas. If it pans out I will join them as soon as it becomes reasonable for me to do so, based on whether I think I can earn a living out there.
"which would strengthen their positions and make it more difficult for small companies to create, protect, and bring to market disruptive technology."
What? There is nothing like this in the article itself. And how exactly does a limit of 5 unique patents per invention strengthen their positions? From my perspective patents only serve to stifle progress in this age of accelerating change. I can understand why they helped back when things moved slower, but that's not the case anymore.
I guess it depends what you mean then. To me artificial intelligence doesn't necessarily have to be exactly the same type of intelligence as a human, that's practically impossible, because it would have to have all the same type of sensory data as a human, which means robotics, or at least human->machine interfacing, has to come along massively. But an intelligence capable of solving most of the same problems as humans can, within its own domain (whether that be an artificial 3D world or a world of numerical data), should be possible.
Of course, like you say(and I said), it's unpredictable, so I guess it comes down to optimism on my part(and trends in computation) that says it will be possible soon.
Please tell me ONE major advance in whatever field you work in.
It doesn't really work like that. Very rarely in science is there some major advance that you can specifically point to. Everything we had back then in AI we still have, but it is so much better. The neuroscience side of things is progressing, we are getting better data about the brain. Developing practical applications based on that. Voice recognition is pretty good now, automatic translation is better, computational vision is better, autonomous robots are better. And frankly, it's rather difficult to put theories on artificial intelligence when the computational capability isn't yet there, so things are getting better as computation gets faster.
What would satisfy you as a major advance in the field? The problem with AI techniques is that they very quickly leave the field of AI, or they don't yet have any practical applications. Juergen Schmidhuber's work on Recurrent Neural Nets is very impressive and he's a good name to watch for the future of AI.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure they spell it right.
I don't see the problem. You can stop using the website, no? I only block adverts if they are flashing, noisy or make the page unusable (like the stupid flash ones that cover up the text before shrinking down). Other types of adverts I have no problem with and am happy to view to support my favourite sites.
Try the Seasteading Institute.
but her laptop's got a 28.8bps modem AND it runs on RISC architecture! She must be a hacker!
The original GP2X(the predecessor to the Wiz) had an analog stick, although it was quite rubbish and got changed to a D-Pad in the later version(F-200). The pandora is almost complete and has dual analog controls of their own design (as well as a d-pad).
All this cost me a grand total of: $0
+17% of your taxes source
Guestimating your yearly tax to be $6000, that's about $1000 per year.
How often do you go to hospital?
I'm actually British and we have socialised health care too, but I don't appreciate it, and it bothers me when people claim it's free.
Better than any government having that power.
"do not behave in agreement with libertarian beliefs- the behave in their own raw self interest."
what? that is essentially the libertarian belief... as long as you add "and don't stop anyone else from behaving in their own raw self interest"
he said he was moving to california, not canada
Thank you, I think this is the first time I've thought a moderation of one of my posts was completely unwarranted, so thank you for the support.
You made the right choice for the wrong reasons.
The choice I've made is never to work for a company that takes on government contracts... Which ends up being all those companies that make weapons.
I would have no qualms with working for a company making weapons and willing to sell them on an open market but not to governments using stolen money to buy weapons in order to steal more money from more people.
Our new formula is scientifically proven* to combat the 7 signs of terrorism.
Using our patented Neutrokillusall formula you can be guaranteed to reduce the 7 signs, maintaining a fresh, healthy population.
*In warzone studies, 8 out of 10 governments noticed a significant reduction in the 7 signs of terrorism
cameras mounted on every Wiimote are only 320x240, I believe.
actually they are 1024x768 and can capture very fast, but presumably it's mono only. There's also no way(in software) to get at the output of it, before it goes through the SOC that does blob detection.
Can they ever get their facts straight?
What are you talking about? Everyone knows it's the terrorists. It's always been the terrorists. We will fight them with our allies: Canada, China and Russia.
There's a positive feedback loop here that's quite scary. You heat up the atmosphere a tiny bit, you get outgassings of greenhouse gases (CO2 from the oceans, methane from defrosting ice sheet in the north, gases released by dying wetlands) and that heats up the atmosphere more. Which releases more gases...
Such a feedback system should go out of control, unless there is also a separate negative feedback component in the system that has a stronger effect than the positive feedback component. The data shows that both CO2 and temperature go in cycles, which would indicate, assuming that there IS a positive feedback effect, that a stronger negative feedback component is keeping it somewhat at an equilibrium.
This is my main problem with the whole area, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I'm not a climatologist, and that I quite possibly am wrong, but my area is in artificial intelligence, of which dynamic feedback systems plays a large role. The world is a massively complicated system of multiple feedback loops. With such a complex system there really is no hope of developing accurate models for how it will behave under various stimuli, at least, not without many many more years of studying it in real time. By all means continue research, continue studying, get the best models we can, but leave draconian governmental regulation until we are sure that we are not putting a huge unnecessary burden on our world economy.
And you're right, I don't cite it as a counter argument to AGW, more to counter Al Gore's primary argument(which is the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice cores), which unfortunately is the media-friendly face of the science on this matter, which is therefore the extent of the public's and the political knowledge of the subject.
Read the paper(http://www.quickfilepost.com/download.do?get=1a838a6813c6da4fdcf6aa66145adb66). The fact that "timing is not accurately known" is the motivation for the work they did.
Actually registration on that site is free, but it's annoying, so I took the time to do it for you and re-uploaded it to here: http://www.quickfilepost.com/download.do?get=1a838a6813c6da4fdcf6aa66145adb66
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728 unfortunately I can't find a free fulltext version of it for you but I'd be interested if you can find one. It mentions the relevant information in the abstract though.
No-one's disputing that there's a relationship, but the ice core readings show that CO2 rise comes a few hundred years after the temperature rise.
So yes, the sceptics do question the relationship; not whether there is or isn't a relationship, but whether it means what is most commonly reported as fact.
Because I let my emotions get the better of me and didn't want that to affect my karma :) my apologies. I'll be civil.
I stand by my points though. There really isn't any proof that there has been an "unprecedented rate of change" recently.
Temperature has fluctuated throughout the ages, and not because of carbon dioxide(there is a correlation, but the CO2 levels change after the temperature), and we haven't reached anything close to the top or bottom of the ranges that the world has been in in the past.
Now, I realise that people don't want to have to deal with global change, but the world is a damn complex system... there is absolutely no way to know how our actions affect it exactly, nor what we should change that will improve the situation for us.
Now I totally support reducing(through social and economic means, not through government regulation) pollution, nastiness in our atmosphere, things that statistically show that people who are exposed to it have shorter lives. But CO2 doesn't have any negative effects to our bodies, nor is there any statistically significant evidence to show that it has an effect on the world, except perhaps to allow more trees to grow.
There's my more reasoned points. Perhaps you can understand a bit better.
or the high seas where there are no laws.
Some people are looking into the living on the seas idea. They've got some good ideas and plans but they're quite expensive ideas. If it pans out I will join them as soon as it becomes reasonable for me to do so, based on whether I think I can earn a living out there.
5 unique patents per invention
Sorry. that should have been "5 unique claims per invention" (i.e. 5 unique claims per patent)
"which would strengthen their positions and make it more difficult for small companies to create, protect, and bring to market disruptive technology."
What? There is nothing like this in the article itself. And how exactly does a limit of 5 unique patents per invention strengthen their positions? From my perspective patents only serve to stifle progress in this age of accelerating change. I can understand why they helped back when things moved slower, but that's not the case anymore.
I guess it depends what you mean then. To me artificial intelligence doesn't necessarily have to be exactly the same type of intelligence as a human, that's practically impossible, because it would have to have all the same type of sensory data as a human, which means robotics, or at least human->machine interfacing, has to come along massively. But an intelligence capable of solving most of the same problems as humans can, within its own domain (whether that be an artificial 3D world or a world of numerical data), should be possible.
Of course, like you say(and I said), it's unpredictable, so I guess it comes down to optimism on my part(and trends in computation) that says it will be possible soon.
Please tell me ONE major advance in whatever field you work in.
It doesn't really work like that. Very rarely in science is there some major advance that you can specifically point to. Everything we had back then in AI we still have, but it is so much better. The neuroscience side of things is progressing, we are getting better data about the brain. Developing practical applications based on that. Voice recognition is pretty good now, automatic translation is better, computational vision is better, autonomous robots are better. And frankly, it's rather difficult to put theories on artificial intelligence when the computational capability isn't yet there, so things are getting better as computation gets faster.
What would satisfy you as a major advance in the field? The problem with AI techniques is that they very quickly leave the field of AI, or they don't yet have any practical applications. Juergen Schmidhuber's work on Recurrent Neural Nets is very impressive and he's a good name to watch for the future of AI.