Is the use of the term "hologram" designed to imply that an n-dimensional function can describe an (n+m)-dimensional object? The (n+m) dimensional object being a perceptual illusion similar to a hologram?
This gets to the right question... how long will we have keyboard-mouse and big-screens for doing real work? As long as I am alive I hope. Point and click is okay, but touch and tap sucks.
We like to think that libertarian philosophies will save us... it is not a shortage of libertarians in the West that is the problem, it is that they spend their time trying to stop the West from waging war rather than trying to stop the rest of the world from fighting dirty. But we are working on it (Syria DID back down, no?)
Prior to WW-I we were headed down a path that made warfare the province of specialists who only killed each other. This was the result of Western civilization slowly coming to terms with making war a set-piece event, primarily between armies on the field. But then... (some examples only)
* the USofA Americans showed how to use that set-piece mentality against a tyranny (ca 1776-)
* Shaka Zulu converted from stylized tribal warfare methods to a similar guerrilla form of war (ca 1790)
* Gen. Sherman applied a scorched earth strategy through the South to end slavery (go away if you want to argue revisionist histories) (ca 1860-s)
* British and German forces in WW-I continued that tradition, declaring means of production to be valid targets. (ca 1910s)
* Everyone came on board in WW-II, though there was debate over day-light precision bombardment (in daylight, targets=factories) vs carpet bombing (at night, targets=cities). Nukes made the distinction irrelevant. (ca 1940s)
Along the way, things like the Geneva conventions have been struggling to make doctors and engineers part of the solution by making some of their products illegal (as war crimes), so we have a precedent for this idea.
BUT
The hegemony we saw in late 1700s in Europe has stopped spreading (because colonialism is evil). So the Euro-centric model of limiting war by rules is confronted by a genetic algorithm based solution that is right now trying to find out which system is better. At the extremes: the Western trended "rules of war". A the other extreme, the guerrilla tactics and all's fair models of the new tribal societies. Hooray for science, we know how to model the question of which will win (see Prisoner's Dilemma ). The bad news is that the genetic algorithm does not reward "fair", or "just" or "peace". It rewards fecundity (see Idiocracy) whether genes or memes.
No, this just sets the precedent that outlets are not invitations to charge devices unless they are clearly marked for that use. It is simple courtesy that if someone puts out a bushel of apples with a sign that says "Free, take one", then you take one. Not two, not ten. RTFM
When I was taught evolution we started with creationism, then watched as the history unfolded through all the fits and start of the development of the theory of evolution. At the end I feel I understood the method (it wasn't really science until we started testing natural selection in the petri dish, till then it was all observational not experimental). I also feel it gave me a good foundation in what is science (falsifiable statements only, please) and what is faith. But I no longer look to creationism for anything but story lines for nursery tales.
Start with a word processor and a spreadsheet, and make it possible for poorer users to maintain data without having to own and maintain their own hardware.
And "based on a real story" often is simply a marketing ploy, while the movie is still just fiction. O-Stone used to be notorious for re-writing history to make better stories.
we ban behavior that doesn't hurt anybody, allow people to hurt themselves, pay to fix people who have hurt themselves, have lots of people who are unemployable, etc. How do you reconcile the libertarian ideal of personal responsibility and freedom with the reality that many don't seem to thrive under those conditions?
Actually, libertarians may have to accept the dual-track society that Heinlein envisioned. The trick is keeping the "free" free (as a minority of self-aware people) and the proles fed and entertained in a world where we have one-person, one vote. Thank Decartes (my god this week) for the Car-trashians.
This post, and its parent, show such a poor grasp of how to use statistics and modeling that I cannot even begin to discuss the merits of the statements...
Since I am still mostly working in science and math, the articles I find are usually very stable indeed. Pity the fools that use it for political information though, because there the truth is NOT out there.
mcgrew asks (about music) "What evolutionary advantage does it give us?". The answer to this question is always... greater reproductive success. The question is, why does music give us greater reproductive success? Watch the pole dancing in the movie "The Internship" to see why.
The question of self-awareness is not the same as the question of free will. A die, when thrown, exhibits all the necessary traits of free will at the macro level, (and at the quantum level when you get right down to it). But a software program may exhibit pseudo-free-will (analogous to pseudo-random) but not free will.
And Q4 ("Can I predict my own decisions beforehand?")! Good grief, MRIs seem to show that we make decisions then find out what they are, not the other way around. That is, we make the decision BEFORE we are aware of the decision we made, then the knowledge of the decision bubbles to the top. (See pop-culture level story Brains scans can reveal your decisions 7 seconds before you decide).
[greybeard alert] The WYSIWYG interface of the IBM Selectric was ugly, corrections were messy and revisions were time and money lost. We were more careful programming when we got one turn around a day and used punch cards, similarly, we were careful and detail oriented when creating a document took a specialist (a "secretary") to create and change it. When the first Wang CPT-like systems entered the staff (USAF) we quickly noted that documents suddenly had to be perfect, corrections weren't allowed and the curmudgeons like to complain about the change in focus from content to format. The hapless staff officer would run around with the 8" floppy with the electronic version of the document, and every little nit picked resulted in a new printing, offices revisited, and signatures. TROFF and TeX both seemed to let you focus on content (again), but it seemed that people spent so much time tweaking the layout that that dream was lost. WYSIWYG was supposed to fix that, but the quality of the theses my students turned in did not reflect that dream so much as their desire to dazzle with really fancy font and alignment and equations that were typeset soooo prettily, surround by words that did not seem to matter so much. For a while I was a bit of an HTML 3.0 is all you really need Luddite, and highly structured CSS seems like a jump three steps back (JMP *-3) in complexity just to try to get back to where we were when all you could do was size, bold and italic (or is that em?). Sheese, I'm going back to hand-written. Maybe even carved in stone or clay.
The SciAm site is often weighted down with trolly arguments that quickly seem to degenerate into fights between the two camps of True Believers. While this is NOT where science is being done, it is where opinions are being formed that in turn decide what science will get funding. I usually go to the source papers to avoid the opinion crap.
Not all data follows the same path, did they have a shorter route so their trade arrived on the floor before the announcement arrived (in which case they traded locally illegally). I CANNOT WAIT to read transcripts of lawyers trying to explain, to a lay jury, simultaneity and event sequencing using Einstein-Minkowsky diagrams. See also this most excellent TED talk, How Algorithms Shape Our World explaining why some peoples data paths are better than others.
So a small fly brain can convert visual processed data into action faster than we can, if the biology is based on the same basic neurotransmission chemistry. Not surprised here.
A pilot asked me if a helicopter could lift a 4 ton object if it had 4 x two-ton capable cables. 2x4=8 which is double the load weight. Not a bad engineering fudge factor, right?
Wrong. The vagueries of the system are such that it is likely that each cable will at times have to carry the entire load, so each rope has to be at least 4 ton capable.
Statics are actually dynamics, in the real world.
Has Google crossed the threshold where the government(s) need to either break it up or impose extraordinary controls? That is the theory behind trust-busting and the attempts to keep banks from growing too large, because if they fail, they can take the economy with them. Grow too big to fail, and suddenly you can no longer operate as if you are in a free market environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you use other people's vehicles to kill the deer.
Is the use of the term "hologram" designed to imply that an n-dimensional function can describe an (n+m)-dimensional object? The (n+m) dimensional object being a perceptual illusion similar to a hologram?
This gets to the right question ... how long will we have keyboard-mouse and big-screens for doing real work? As long as I am alive I hope. Point and click is okay, but touch and tap sucks.
We like to think that libertarian philosophies will save us ... it is not a shortage of libertarians in the West that is the problem, it is that they spend their time trying to stop the West from waging war rather than trying to stop the rest of the world from fighting dirty. But we are working on it (Syria DID back down, no?)
Along the way, things like the Geneva conventions have been struggling to make doctors and engineers part of the solution by making some of their products illegal (as war crimes), so we have a precedent for this idea.
BUT
The hegemony we saw in late 1700s in Europe has stopped spreading (because colonialism is evil). So the Euro-centric model of limiting war by rules is confronted by a genetic algorithm based solution that is right now trying to find out which system is better. At the extremes: the Western trended "rules of war". A the other extreme, the guerrilla tactics and all's fair models of the new tribal societies. Hooray for science, we know how to model the question of which will win (see Prisoner's Dilemma ). The bad news is that the genetic algorithm does not reward "fair", or "just" or "peace". It rewards fecundity (see Idiocracy) whether genes or memes.
"Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle."
Add ... But far too many just piss in the fountain.
No, this just sets the precedent that outlets are not invitations to charge devices unless they are clearly marked for that use. It is simple courtesy that if someone puts out a bushel of apples with a sign that says "Free, take one", then you take one. Not two, not ten. RTFM
When I was taught evolution we started with creationism, then watched as the history unfolded through all the fits and start of the development of the theory of evolution. At the end I feel I understood the method (it wasn't really science until we started testing natural selection in the petri dish, till then it was all observational not experimental). I also feel it gave me a good foundation in what is science (falsifiable statements only, please) and what is faith. But I no longer look to creationism for anything but story lines for nursery tales.
Start with a word processor and a spreadsheet, and make it possible for poorer users to maintain data without having to own and maintain their own hardware.
Isn't that what Google Drive is doing?
And "based on a real story" often is simply a marketing ploy, while the movie is still just fiction. O-Stone used to be notorious for re-writing history to make better stories.
Actually, libertarians may have to accept the dual-track society that Heinlein envisioned. The trick is keeping the "free" free (as a minority of self-aware people) and the proles fed and entertained in a world where we have one-person, one vote. Thank Decartes (my god this week) for the Car-trashians.
Then he forgot the passwords. Ooops.
I have a tendency to refer people to the ruthless fremen in Dune whenever they express an inability to understand how al qaeda functions.
This post, and its parent, show such a poor grasp of how to use statistics and modeling that I cannot even begin to discuss the merits of the statements ...
Since I am still mostly working in science and math, the articles I find are usually very stable indeed. Pity the fools that use it for political information though, because there the truth is NOT out there.
mcgrew asks (about music) "What evolutionary advantage does it give us?". The answer to this question is always ... greater reproductive success. The question is, why does music give us greater reproductive success? Watch the pole dancing in the movie "The Internship" to see why.
The question of self-awareness is not the same as the question of free will. A die, when thrown, exhibits all the necessary traits of free will at the macro level, (and at the quantum level when you get right down to it). But a software program may exhibit pseudo-free-will (analogous to pseudo-random) but not free will. And Q4 ("Can I predict my own decisions beforehand?")! Good grief, MRIs seem to show that we make decisions then find out what they are, not the other way around. That is, we make the decision BEFORE we are aware of the decision we made, then the knowledge of the decision bubbles to the top. (See pop-culture level story Brains scans can reveal your decisions 7 seconds before you decide).
[greybeard alert] The WYSIWYG interface of the IBM Selectric was ugly, corrections were messy and revisions were time and money lost. We were more careful programming when we got one turn around a day and used punch cards, similarly, we were careful and detail oriented when creating a document took a specialist (a "secretary") to create and change it. When the first Wang CPT-like systems entered the staff (USAF) we quickly noted that documents suddenly had to be perfect, corrections weren't allowed and the curmudgeons like to complain about the change in focus from content to format. The hapless staff officer would run around with the 8" floppy with the electronic version of the document, and every little nit picked resulted in a new printing, offices revisited, and signatures. TROFF and TeX both seemed to let you focus on content (again), but it seemed that people spent so much time tweaking the layout that that dream was lost. WYSIWYG was supposed to fix that, but the quality of the theses my students turned in did not reflect that dream so much as their desire to dazzle with really fancy font and alignment and equations that were typeset soooo prettily, surround by words that did not seem to matter so much. For a while I was a bit of an HTML 3.0 is all you really need Luddite, and highly structured CSS seems like a jump three steps back (JMP *-3) in complexity just to try to get back to where we were when all you could do was size, bold and italic (or is that em?). Sheese, I'm going back to hand-written. Maybe even carved in stone or clay.
The SciAm site is often weighted down with trolly arguments that quickly seem to degenerate into fights between the two camps of True Believers. While this is NOT where science is being done, it is where opinions are being formed that in turn decide what science will get funding. I usually go to the source papers to avoid the opinion crap.
Not all data follows the same path, did they have a shorter route so their trade arrived on the floor before the announcement arrived (in which case they traded locally illegally). I CANNOT WAIT to read transcripts of lawyers trying to explain, to a lay jury, simultaneity and event sequencing using Einstein-Minkowsky diagrams. See also this most excellent TED talk, How Algorithms Shape Our World explaining why some peoples data paths are better than others.
Ooops, conversion error, that should be 30cm.
So a small fly brain can convert visual processed data into action faster than we can, if the biology is based on the same basic neurotransmission chemistry. Not surprised here.
A pilot asked me if a helicopter could lift a 4 ton object if it had 4 x two-ton capable cables. 2x4=8 which is double the load weight. Not a bad engineering fudge factor, right? Wrong. The vagueries of the system are such that it is likely that each cable will at times have to carry the entire load, so each rope has to be at least 4 ton capable. Statics are actually dynamics, in the real world.
Has Google crossed the threshold where the government(s) need to either break it up or impose extraordinary controls? That is the theory behind trust-busting and the attempts to keep banks from growing too large, because if they fail, they can take the economy with them. Grow too big to fail, and suddenly you can no longer operate as if you are in a free market environment.
Is the system using JPG compression ? We have all seen boxes of pixels move around when the DVD player gets confused.