rule #1: don't be a dick. what isn't yours isn't yours. it's none of your business. so shut up.
rule #2: use common sense. and if you don't have any, then your best bet is probably just to be completely passive.
both rules were egregiously broken here. and by who? military. surprise, surprise.
is it breeder reactor? liquid thorium blanket? what generation reactor? the article say nothing on that. i'd like to see some progress in reactor tech being implemented by the US.
if he were to give you this answer:
what it does right: nothing.
what it does wrong: everything.
would you still tell him to rewrite it?
would you just think of him as cocky?
and when you actually have to look at the code yourself, would you end up rewriting it after insulting him for suggesting exactly that?
Hmm... the judicial branch's actions involve interpreting the law rather than writing new law? What a shock.
Why would that come as a shock?
And furthermore, how is that relevant to what I said?
Let me spell out the relationships here for you. There are two steps that come before interpreting:
1. reading
2. comprehending What I said is that it's obvious that either one or both of these steps has been overlooked by the majority of patent judges when it comes to software. What I said was that in order to interpret the law you must first KNOW what law has been written. And while I understand that there are a lot of laws and you can't expect a judge to know all of them, A. that's what lawyers are for, and B. you should at least expect a patent judge to know patent law 101. And I thought I was pretty friggin' clear the first time.
That's always been the law.
Look up basic patent law. Those criteria have been fundamental since the patent system's inception.
I suppose it takes a judge that's actually read the law to be able to rephrase it so that other judges can be reminded of what the law has stated for centuries. Perhaps now more patent judges will make rulings actually based on patent law.
Glad to hear of the "development", but it's always been the case.
yeah. that struck me, too. they did the math wrong. initially 114Tb would be 114 * 1024 per Gb. Assuming your computer has at least 2Gb of memory their numbers are already way off. Mine has 8. that makes them off by more than on order of magnitude.
They need to add in the limbic and other closely tied-in systems before they can get a truly accurate simulation. without doing so, the virtual cat won't get angry, sad, happy, hungry, etc. It won't get dopamine, it won't get positive and negative feedback, it won't learn. The hormonal system of the body is arguably more important than the brain for survival. It codifies the most crucial instincts and provides a logical foundation for the more complex planning of the brain. Without it the cat won't meow. (or would do so relatively randomly)
I would much rather program in dfdl.vhdl. Unfortunately, it's doesn't exist. It's a language that I designed only because Verilog and VHDL both suck so much. I felt compelled to show how to make a hardware description language that doesn't suck. So I did. And here's a sample of what the code looks like:
circuit parallel_multiply( bit in1, bit in2; bit out) {
in1*in2 | partial_products;
partial_products
| reduce(wallace_stage,3)
| reduce(wallace_leaf,2)
| ripple_adder
| out;
}
circuit reduce( bit in; bit out; circuit reducer, int reduce_to) {
bit stage;
in | stage;
while( max(stage.count)) > reduce_to)
stage | reducer | stage';
stage | out;
}
circuit wallace_stage( bit in; bit out) {
bit vertical, carry, sum;
in,vertical | compressorn_nm2 | carry,sum,vertical;
sum | out;
carry | out;
}
circuit compressorn_nm2( bit in, bit down; bit carry, bit out, bit up) {
while( a.count > 3)
in-,in-,in-,in-,down-('0') | compressor4_2 | carry+,out+,up+;
in | out;
down | out;
}
That could be difficult to read, esp. if you don't know the syntax. But one could just as easily write clearer (if longer) code than this -- this was just to show the power and flexibility of the language. The equivalent in either VHDL or Verilog would be at least twice as long. I would LOVE to be able to program hardware in this language, instead of having to choose between two languages that were written back in the stone age.
C is the ideal introductory programming language. It's very simple and the syntax is very consistent.
Basic and pascal are clunky and have inconsistent syntax.
K & R's "The C Programming Language" is a classic highly regarded for it's clarity and conciseness. It would make an excellent introductory book. And it would start the students off on the right foot.
What's wrong with C? And what's wrong with the standard introductory book? ("The C Programming Language" by Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Language_(book) It "has often been cited as a model for technical writing, due to the book's clear presentation and concise treatment". I'd hate to see them start off with "A function definition is like a teddy bear..." crap. Start them off on the right foot, and they'll be much better coders for it.
I see computer AI as glorified complex statistical models that use some form of online gradient descent approach to tweak their parameters.
That being said, if the algorithms are highly data-parrallel, as one would imagine they should be (or should be able to be made so), a GPGPU like NVIDIA's 9800s or ATI's equivalents would give at least an order of magnitude improvement in processing power. (and price/performance ratio)
Seems to me it would be the only way to go for advanced research projects dealing with computer AI.
oh, and you're hearing this from a technophile. using technology right is about using the right technology (not the latest). for elections, black boxes are precisely the wrong technology, and that's exactly what e-voting machines are. what you want is a write-once glass box. that's why pen and paper is superior.
That's precisely the problem with e-voting (or one of the many, I should say), you CAN'T detect tampering.
Frankly, you're screwed. And from what you write, it sounds like you already know it.
My suggestion is to do everything you can to get the county to switch to optical scan machines. They are the most secure (tamper-resistant, etc.) voting method. They are also the cheapest. We've been using them for a long time in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin and have never had the slightest problem or concern. It boggles my mind why every county in the country isn't using optical scan machines for voting. But then again, it boggles my mind why any precinct in the country is using e-voting at all.
Petition your local government to switch to a more secure voting technology (such as pen and paper, for instance). That's really all you can do. Everything else is just a band-aid on a broken bone.
Slashdot Mirror
rule #1: don't be a dick. what isn't yours isn't yours. it's none of your business. so shut up. rule #2: use common sense. and if you don't have any, then your best bet is probably just to be completely passive. both rules were egregiously broken here. and by who? military. surprise, surprise.
...as part of a sequence of numbers used to identify a desired object from a set of possible objects. my claim should have as much validity as theirs.
and my hopes have been fulfilled.
hence your troubles.
...with the resolution. always the obstinate one, eh, physics?
is it breeder reactor? liquid thorium blanket? what generation reactor? the article say nothing on that. i'd like to see some progress in reactor tech being implemented by the US.
if he were to give you this answer: what it does right: nothing. what it does wrong: everything. would you still tell him to rewrite it? would you just think of him as cocky? and when you actually have to look at the code yourself, would you end up rewriting it after insulting him for suggesting exactly that?
Make it count for ALL of the final grade then I don't have to do any homework! Thanks cheaters!
Oh DARPA, please be sure to double-check the math!
just put a PID controller in there. that'll fix it.
when i saw the title i said "wow". then i read the summary, and i said "wow" again. that makes it a double-wow.
nevermind. i misinterpreted you. (oh, the irony!)
Hmm... the judicial branch's actions involve interpreting the law rather than writing new law? What a shock.
Why would that come as a shock? And furthermore, how is that relevant to what I said? Let me spell out the relationships here for you. There are two steps that come before interpreting: 1. reading 2. comprehending What I said is that it's obvious that either one or both of these steps has been overlooked by the majority of patent judges when it comes to software. What I said was that in order to interpret the law you must first KNOW what law has been written. And while I understand that there are a lot of laws and you can't expect a judge to know all of them, A. that's what lawyers are for, and B. you should at least expect a patent judge to know patent law 101. And I thought I was pretty friggin' clear the first time.
That's always been the law. Look up basic patent law. Those criteria have been fundamental since the patent system's inception. I suppose it takes a judge that's actually read the law to be able to rephrase it so that other judges can be reminded of what the law has stated for centuries. Perhaps now more patent judges will make rulings actually based on patent law. Glad to hear of the "development", but it's always been the case.
if posting the article counts as getting new members...
yeah. that struck me, too. they did the math wrong. initially 114Tb would be 114 * 1024 per Gb. Assuming your computer has at least 2Gb of memory their numbers are already way off. Mine has 8. that makes them off by more than on order of magnitude.
I was had a foot on my head, but nature took it away :(.
They need to add in the limbic and other closely tied-in systems before they can get a truly accurate simulation. without doing so, the virtual cat won't get angry, sad, happy, hungry, etc. It won't get dopamine, it won't get positive and negative feedback, it won't learn. The hormonal system of the body is arguably more important than the brain for survival. It codifies the most crucial instincts and provides a logical foundation for the more complex planning of the brain. Without it the cat won't meow. (or would do so relatively randomly)
I would much rather program in dfdl.vhdl. Unfortunately, it's doesn't exist. It's a language that I designed only because Verilog and VHDL both suck so much. I felt compelled to show how to make a hardware description language that doesn't suck. So I did. And here's a sample of what the code looks like: circuit parallel_multiply( bit in1, bit in2; bit out) { in1*in2 | partial_products; partial_products | reduce(wallace_stage,3) | reduce(wallace_leaf,2) | ripple_adder | out; } circuit reduce( bit in; bit out; circuit reducer, int reduce_to) { bit stage; in | stage; while( max(stage.count)) > reduce_to) stage | reducer | stage'; stage | out; } circuit wallace_stage( bit in; bit out) { bit vertical, carry, sum; in,vertical | compressorn_nm2 | carry,sum,vertical; sum | out; carry | out; } circuit compressorn_nm2( bit in, bit down; bit carry, bit out, bit up) { while( a.count > 3) in-,in-,in-,in-,down-('0') | compressor4_2 | carry+,out+,up+; in | out; down | out; } That could be difficult to read, esp. if you don't know the syntax. But one could just as easily write clearer (if longer) code than this -- this was just to show the power and flexibility of the language. The equivalent in either VHDL or Verilog would be at least twice as long. I would LOVE to be able to program hardware in this language, instead of having to choose between two languages that were written back in the stone age.
C is the ideal introductory programming language. It's very simple and the syntax is very consistent. Basic and pascal are clunky and have inconsistent syntax. K & R's "The C Programming Language" is a classic highly regarded for it's clarity and conciseness. It would make an excellent introductory book. And it would start the students off on the right foot.
What's wrong with C? And what's wrong with the standard introductory book? ("The C Programming Language" by Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Language_(book) It "has often been cited as a model for technical writing, due to the book's clear presentation and concise treatment". I'd hate to see them start off with "A function definition is like a teddy bear..." crap. Start them off on the right foot, and they'll be much better coders for it.
reconfigurable liquid circuits
I see computer AI as glorified complex statistical models that use some form of online gradient descent approach to tweak their parameters.
That being said, if the algorithms are highly data-parrallel, as one would imagine they should be (or should be able to be made so), a GPGPU like NVIDIA's 9800s or ATI's equivalents would give at least an order of magnitude improvement in processing power. (and price/performance ratio)
Seems to me it would be the only way to go for advanced research projects dealing with computer AI.
oh, and you're hearing this from a technophile. using technology right is about using the right technology (not the latest). for elections, black boxes are precisely the wrong technology, and that's exactly what e-voting machines are. what you want is a write-once glass box. that's why pen and paper is superior.
That's precisely the problem with e-voting (or one of the many, I should say), you CAN'T detect tampering. Frankly, you're screwed. And from what you write, it sounds like you already know it. My suggestion is to do everything you can to get the county to switch to optical scan machines. They are the most secure (tamper-resistant, etc.) voting method. They are also the cheapest. We've been using them for a long time in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin and have never had the slightest problem or concern. It boggles my mind why every county in the country isn't using optical scan machines for voting. But then again, it boggles my mind why any precinct in the country is using e-voting at all. Petition your local government to switch to a more secure voting technology (such as pen and paper, for instance). That's really all you can do. Everything else is just a band-aid on a broken bone.