What a great idea, and why restrict it to O'Reilly! We can have George Lucas do K&R with all the C++ special effects added in later, have Peter Jackson direct a definitive version of Knuth that will most of the geeks can live with, and the guy who did Trainspotting can do the Camel book...
I think he gets that, actually. Read the part where the directors ask him to "clarify" the infinite improbability drive concept:
Each time we tried to clarify the I.I.D, we'd look through the script and say, "It's in there, isn't it?" By lunch, we moved from coffee to wine and the I.I.D. concept was gaining clarity. By late afternoon when we moved from wine to more wine, we had deduced that we were, in fact, brilliant and that the script was flawless. So we decided to go with the "less is more" theory and left the script alone. And then we had more wine.
Here are some reasons to wear a tie:
-You'll appear more professional than your workmates who don't wear one
And if you work in an environment where the rest of the professionals don't wear a tie, they'll think you have a need to appear this way, you apparently need to mask incompetence.
-You'll appeal more to management types
Where I work, management types do not wear a tie except when visiting clients. You'll look ridiculous.
-You gain the appearance of having status and importance
-It's the only safe place in formal workwear for a man to express himself.
I say, fuck that. The only time I care about formal workwear is when making a first impression on a new client, and then I want to appear as a competent professional. I'll express myself on all the other occassions.
-Ties are a "success indicator", which essentially means that you will be viewed more favourably by persons of the female persuasion (unless your tie has flashing boobies on it).
This is true, and a good reason for wearing a tie.
Could it be that those more concerned about the risks have taken its release as a good opportunity for sounding their views (since people will be more receptive?)
YES: This is the movie's website, with the banner "The day after tomorrow, where will you be?": www.thedayaftertomorrow.com, while this site is setup by Greenpeace, and highlights current issues and politics, under the banner "The day is today, what will you do?": www.thedayaftertomorrow.org.
You have to dig pretty deep in the law books to find that this is legal...
Actually, that is daft. It is legal because it is not in the law books at all. It's a good thing the books don't list the finite list of things that are allowed, right?
10 new countries joined the EU on May 1. I remember hearing on the news back then that this made the EU economy bigger than that of the USA. I think your numbers are pre-expansion.
Consequently, I speculate that his vehicle must be an aircraft carrier...operating on land.
My only question is, are you an evil war lord? And if so, what kind of powers do you have? Do you use them for good, or for awesome? Would you like to join forces? I just happen to be the greatest criminal mind of our time.
-Strong Bad
uh? you actually NEGOTIATE such things before the thing is even INVESTIGATED properly?
This is why some countries do not extradite prisoners to the US anymore (besides the existence of the death penalty). The pressure to accept a plea bargain is so high that there really is not a fair trial anymore.
Ah, apparently the submitter hasn't heard of the horror that is (was, I hope) translated VBA. If you had a Dutch version of Office, your Visual Basic was Dutch as well. That is, the language itself. A FOR..NEXT loop was something like a VAN..NAAR loop (I have only seen this stuff, not coded in it).
I can't find the right Google keywords at the moment to find an example, but it was horrible, and of course totally incompatible with other versions...
It requires human perception, which is fallible and inconsistent, to validate the quality of AI.
Worse, it requires the AI to fake human fallible and inconsistent human perception. Any test that requires an AI to wait for a bit before giving the answer to a hard numerical problem is a daft test.
The Turing test tests humanness, not intelligence. There is no reason for (artificial) intelligence to be similar to a human's at all.
why there is a wiki entry if its only a theory... sheesh, flat earth is a theory
All of science is "only a theory". (Yes, to Americans who still believe what they learned at school - no, theories don't "promote to Law" at some point. They stay theories regardless of what they're named). That's what science deals with.
Now superstring theory is a bit different, since as far as I know they haven't actually had any predictions yet that can be tested, they aren't really "connected to reality". In a way they're now a really complex collection of math that has yet to become a theory.
But of course, regardless of all that, there's a huge body of knowledge, terms, specialist language etc that needs to be explained to people who want to know what they mean. And that's what encyclopedias are for, you know. Just that they explain what "open string" means in superstring theory doesn't mean they're saying "this here is the only truth". They're not making any statement about the likely success of this theory at all They just explain the sort of ideas it deals with.
and also it makes it easy to tell what works with what. xemacs clearly is the X version of emacs.
That's a perfect example of what is wrong with this approach. The difference between emacs and xemacs has nothing to do with X; yet everybody seems to think so. Both of them work fine under X. Xemacs just forked off ages ago because of disagreements with RMS.
Actually the Earth orbits the Sun. The Moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun. mmkay.
Actually, the moon's orbit around the sun is convex; the Sun's gravitational pull is larger than the Earth's. The moon also orbits the Sun, together with the Earth; they switch relative positions a few times per year. That's why the Moon and Earth are sometimes referred to as binary planets.
There's an insult in there somewhere, but I'm not sure what you're trying to attack.
No, no, no, I love gcc, it wasn't meant as an insult at all. I just couldn't quite come to grips with the whole idea of using genetic algorithms for something like this. It's surreal to me. The world has become a bit weirder for me and I can't really manage to put the feeling into words:-)
I can imagine joking about this over some beers in a pub with some other nerds, but some people actually made this and people are seriously suggesting it should be used for Gentoo...
That's a bit unfair, another EP idea is to refactor endlessly, always improving the code as much as possible. In the situations where EP is good, the alternative is "code something, anything, until you think your hack does what the customer/boss wants done within an hour, and besides it did work with the two things you tried out, so let's put it live". In that sort of environment (taken from my job...), your description of EP would be a marked improvement.
But anyway, this isn't about EP. My opinion of genetic algorithms is "something you try when you don't understand the problem". Instead of solving the problem you try out a bunch of randomly generating tries, slightly systematically, and hope it works out. It's applicable to situations with a lot of variation in different elements, where you don't know much about relations between the choices for different elements, etc.
So I'd say it's a bad idea in theory, but even so it sometimes works when you can't find a solution by thinking.
And the idea that finding the right command line options for gcc is somehow a good problem domain for these things, well...:-)
Q: How can you tell you have perhaps gone slightly overboard in making compiler optimization options available?
A: Your users have not just given up trying to reason out what they should do, or even brute forcing every possible combination, they're inventing fucking genetic algorithms to find out what works best.
Basically the act of "calling gcc from the command line" is know officially a murky problem space to attack with pseudo-random hill climbing stuff...
There is nothing even remotely fish-related about the wildebeest. What does this mean for the GNU project?
To slightly mutilate a well-known quote of which I don't know the attribution: Microsoft follow standards the same way fish follow migrating wildebeest.
So, when you buy something from the iTMS, it STATES that you have to have X or Y. It clearly states the restrictions that you agree to. This is not a hard concept, so why is it felt that a technological solution is required to 'fix' it?
Because, regardless of what it says on the box, it's none of their damn business to tell me what to play it with. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly is sitting on a gold mine.
What a great idea, and why restrict it to O'Reilly! We can have George Lucas do K&R with all the C++ special effects added in later, have Peter Jackson direct a definitive version of Knuth that will most of the geeks can live with, and the guy who did Trainspotting can do the Camel book...
I think he gets that, actually. Read the part where the directors ask him to "clarify" the infinite improbability drive concept:
Each time we tried to clarify the I.I.D, we'd look through the script and say, "It's in there, isn't it?" By lunch, we moved from coffee to wine and the I.I.D. concept was gaining clarity. By late afternoon when we moved from wine to more wine, we had deduced that we were, in fact, brilliant and that the script was flawless. So we decided to go with the "less is more" theory and left the script alone. And then we had more wine.
Less is more. He gets it.
Here are some reasons to wear a tie: -You'll appear more professional than your workmates who don't wear one
And if you work in an environment where the rest of the professionals don't wear a tie, they'll think you have a need to appear this way, you apparently need to mask incompetence.
-You'll appeal more to management types
Where I work, management types do not wear a tie except when visiting clients. You'll look ridiculous.
-You gain the appearance of having status and importance
-It's the only safe place in formal workwear for a man to express himself.
I say, fuck that. The only time I care about formal workwear is when making a first impression on a new client, and then I want to appear as a competent professional. I'll express myself on all the other occassions.
-Ties are a "success indicator", which essentially means that you will be viewed more favourably by persons of the female persuasion (unless your tie has flashing boobies on it).
This is true, and a good reason for wearing a tie.
These green people are ultimatly interested in saving the human race...not the planet.
And this is a bad thing... why?
Could it be that those more concerned about the risks have taken its release as a good opportunity for sounding their views (since people will be more receptive?)
YES: This is the movie's website, with the banner "The day after tomorrow, where will you be?": www.thedayaftertomorrow.com, while this site is setup by Greenpeace, and highlights current issues and politics, under the banner "The day is today, what will you do?": www.thedayaftertomorrow.org.
Smart marketing.
You have to dig pretty deep in the law books to find that this is legal...
Actually, that is daft. It is legal because it is not in the law books at all. It's a good thing the books don't list the finite list of things that are allowed, right?
10 new countries joined the EU on May 1. I remember hearing on the news back then that this made the EU economy bigger than that of the USA. I think your numbers are pre-expansion.
Consequently, I speculate that his vehicle must be an aircraft carrier...operating on land.
My only question is, are you an evil war lord? And if so, what kind of powers do you have? Do you use them for good, or for awesome? Would you like to join forces? I just happen to be the greatest criminal mind of our time. -Strong Bad
uh? you actually NEGOTIATE such things before the thing is even INVESTIGATED properly?
This is why some countries do not extradite prisoners to the US anymore (besides the existence of the death penalty). The pressure to accept a plea bargain is so high that there really is not a fair trial anymore.
Hmm, guess it shows that I didn't code in it. Someone should mod me -1, Wrong...
Ah, apparently the submitter hasn't heard of the horror that is (was, I hope) translated VBA. If you had a Dutch version of Office, your Visual Basic was Dutch as well. That is, the language itself. A FOR..NEXT loop was something like a VAN..NAAR loop (I have only seen this stuff, not coded in it).
I can't find the right Google keywords at the moment to find an example, but it was horrible, and of course totally incompatible with other versions...
It requires human perception, which is fallible and inconsistent, to validate the quality of AI.
Worse, it requires the AI to fake human fallible and inconsistent human perception. Any test that requires an AI to wait for a bit before giving the answer to a hard numerical problem is a daft test.
The Turing test tests humanness, not intelligence. There is no reason for (artificial) intelligence to be similar to a human's at all.
why there is a wiki entry if its only a theory... sheesh, flat earth is a theory
All of science is "only a theory". (Yes, to Americans who still believe what they learned at school - no, theories don't "promote to Law" at some point. They stay theories regardless of what they're named). That's what science deals with.
Now superstring theory is a bit different, since as far as I know they haven't actually had any predictions yet that can be tested, they aren't really "connected to reality". In a way they're now a really complex collection of math that has yet to become a theory.
But of course, regardless of all that, there's a huge body of knowledge, terms, specialist language etc that needs to be explained to people who want to know what they mean. And that's what encyclopedias are for, you know. Just that they explain what "open string" means in superstring theory doesn't mean they're saying "this here is the only truth". They're not making any statement about the likely success of this theory at all They just explain the sort of ideas it deals with.
Sheesh.
This is such a dull, noninteresting subject around here, even I might get a first post.
I think the legal system works just fine. It's all the stupid people that end up going through the legal system that are the problem.
Don't forget the people who don't go through the system because they can't afford it, so they have to settle a case that they should have won.
You beat me to it... another mirror. Should be plenty, this story isn't even on the front page, is it?
and speed up the field of archaeology, which has in some cases been painfully slow.
Yeah, I heard they sometimes only get around to researching stuff centuries after the fact...
and also it makes it easy to tell what works with what. xemacs clearly is the X version of emacs.
That's a perfect example of what is wrong with this approach. The difference between emacs and xemacs has nothing to do with X; yet everybody seems to think so. Both of them work fine under X. Xemacs just forked off ages ago because of disagreements with RMS.
Actually the Earth orbits the Sun. The Moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun. mmkay.
Actually, the moon's orbit around the sun is convex; the Sun's gravitational pull is larger than the Earth's. The moon also orbits the Sun, together with the Earth; they switch relative positions a few times per year. That's why the Moon and Earth are sometimes referred to as binary planets.There's an insult in there somewhere, but I'm not sure what you're trying to attack.
No, no, no, I love gcc, it wasn't meant as an insult at all. I just couldn't quite come to grips with the whole idea of using genetic algorithms for something like this. It's surreal to me. The world has become a bit weirder for me and I can't really manage to put the feeling into words :-)
I can imagine joking about this over some beers in a pub with some other nerds, but some people actually made this and people are seriously suggesting it should be used for Gentoo...
That's a bit unfair, another EP idea is to refactor endlessly, always improving the code as much as possible. In the situations where EP is good, the alternative is "code something, anything, until you think your hack does what the customer/boss wants done within an hour, and besides it did work with the two things you tried out, so let's put it live". In that sort of environment (taken from my job...), your description of EP would be a marked improvement.
But anyway, this isn't about EP. My opinion of genetic algorithms is "something you try when you don't understand the problem". Instead of solving the problem you try out a bunch of randomly generating tries, slightly systematically, and hope it works out. It's applicable to situations with a lot of variation in different elements, where you don't know much about relations between the choices for different elements, etc.
So I'd say it's a bad idea in theory, but even so it sometimes works when you can't find a solution by thinking.
And the idea that finding the right command line options for gcc is somehow a good problem domain for these things, well... :-)
Q: How can you tell you have perhaps gone slightly overboard in making compiler optimization options available?
A: Your users have not just given up trying to reason out what they should do, or even brute forcing every possible combination, they're inventing fucking genetic algorithms to find out what works best.
Basically the act of "calling gcc from the command line" is know officially a murky problem space to attack with pseudo-random hill climbing stuff...
There is nothing even remotely fish-related about the wildebeest. What does this mean for the GNU project?
To slightly mutilate a well-known quote of which I don't know the attribution: Microsoft follow standards the same way fish follow migrating wildebeest.
I think that explains everything.
As Sony will no doubt break the links, for the sake of posterity, here is all of the content.
Trust Slashcode to parse this as a request to break four out of five of your links...
So, when you buy something from the iTMS, it STATES that you have to have X or Y. It clearly states the restrictions that you agree to. This is not a hard concept, so why is it felt that a technological solution is required to 'fix' it?
Because, regardless of what it says on the box, it's none of their damn business to tell me what to play it with. Period.