> Just today I was asking how I could build a > computerized android robot head for under $700. > Now you posted it for the bargan price of $600. > You rock.
I have a great respect for what he had achieved, against the odds.
But the least I could do in deference during my 3 undergrad years, was NOT to be tempted to a photo opportunity each time I see him 'strolling' (more like zipping) along the Fens with his nurse...:)
The problem is not "Explicit Lyrics" but other language-related problem: grammar. Already the technologically challenged citizens of Canada are left in bewildered incomprehension of the burgeoning tech jargon that shows no sign of abating. But the hell of technology acronym and jargon is now being inflamed and by a fiery mix of bad spelling and grammar into a conflagration of epic porportions. This duality further confuses the masses of people, as their lack of understanding of the underlying technology is further compounded by the grammatical incorrectness of its expression. According to Aryan Wind, spokesperson for the Campaign for Purity of Canadian English (CPCE),
this may lead to insecurity as they perceived their lack of comprehension of not just the technology but the language structure to reflect on an inferior intellect. Aryan fears that long term exposure to this phenomenon can causing lasting psychological damage.
Aryan singled out computer games as the major cause of the language depredations that exist in Canada today. "Computer games are the means in which these abhorrations of languages reaches the common masses," Aryan said. "Furthermore, computer games are specifically targeted at a generation at its most impressionable: our children, our future." Aryan noted that the recent advances of the Internet have further spread the problem, making the problem much more difficult to stem. "Already, these so-called 'h4xx0rs' speaks as if they are from a different planet." Aryan insisted that, "if left unregulated this problem fester and further alienate between Canadian citizens already fractured by the English/French divide."
Most Canadians apparently support the move. "We have a very good following among parents and educators," according to Aryan. "All your base are belong to us."
You're right, and if anyone think Napster is all for community service, better think again.
From Napster's FAQ:
-------------------
Q: How does Napster make money?
A: Napster, Inc. has not chosen to make its business model public at this time. Napster, Inc. is a privately-held company.
That right folks, they are in it for the profit and I personally don't blame them, though I do have something against them using the 'open-everything' and 'us-against-those big medias' argument to set our geeky hearts aflutter.
In fact, I'm sure they are soooo glad that they have started to crackdown, like the time they were 'forced against their will but what can they do?' to sign-off their souls to Bertelmanns, as they can then use it as an excuse to start getting cracking on getting the money roll in. excellent ploy, i must say.
(IN A SPACESHIP APPROACHING EVENT HORIZON. Professor Tackhead is explaining the concepts of black hole detection to his fellow disbelievers.)
Professor Tackhead: The folks at the Chandra X-Ray Observatory appear to have detected event horizons by comparing the X-ray luminosity of the accretion discs surrounding black-hole-based X-ray novae versus neutron-star-based X-ray novae during their phases of dormancy. X-ray novae are caused by ignition of fusion in the accretion discs of hot gas....
After the chaos in Florida, we need a company that is a no-nonsense, fair, has great integrity, no political connections, and most especially has a great history of making ultra-reliable and breathtakingly secure software.
Answer: Just in case we ever need to view our genome sequence on IE
And if the human genome has about 3 gig wouldn't wrapping quaint bits of information blow it up by quite a bit? sorry but the idea seems to rank on the same idiocy level as XML:)
My guess is that it is a letter substitution plus translations, governed by the characteristics like Big/Small, Capital/Not, Reversed/Not.
I bet 100+ years ago they didn't have networked supercomputers like we did now, so it should be a cinch. So someone with access the juice, please key in the schema and churn
1. Define degrees of freedom schema ----------------------------------- a) Capital or not (0,1) b) Big, Small (0,1) c) Reversed, or not (0,1) d) The letter (1..26)
2. Key in the data in this schema --------------------------------- (1,1,0,D),(1,0,0,R),spc,...
3. Run the damn thing --------------------- Using a standard dictionary substitution methods for the letters d), using various translations for a), b) and c).
Many of his other writings now seem silly, deliberately provocative, or just perplexingly obscure, such as his doctrine of panpsychism (belief that reality is constituted by the mind), which anticipated the teachings of Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza... [snip]
I wouldn't call this silly.
Since after the renaissance, we have been going the 'empirical-is-so-cool' way without much of a pause to really reexamine it. Science led the way for a few centuries, and converted our minds, and the spirit of our times.
It was until the late 19th century when suddenly large holes were blown into the hiterto smooth course of science: quantum theory, incompleteness, etc.
Anyway: suddenly we are confronted with the issue again. Perhaps it is not all real? How can a photon be a particle and wave at the same time? How can observing something alters it irrevocably?
What I am saying is: we cannot discount such possibilities no matter what are sensibilities are at that time. And since Bruno epitomises the spirit of free-thought, unsheckled by the prevailing optimism, I think I have to disagree with the writer's opinion that Bruno's panpsychism is stupid.
since everybody like to quote penrose, i'll like to say that i've read Penrose (well not in its entirety with all the nasty bits:) and i do find some contentions with his arguments.
firstly, on the main argument, we should realize that all this breast-beating about limits of computability and halting problems are only in the context of turing machines (TM). yeah yeah all our computers are in that kind of form now, but it doesn't have to be in the future - quantum computers for example, can break these turing machine-hard problems in no time if harnessed.
penrose argument seems to be that our brain could be a complex bit of quantum machinery, and therefore is not subceptible/easy to recreate/copy/emulate thanks to various quantum mechanical properties etc. i find that there are very little evidence to support this -- we just don't know enough to qualify what penrose feels is right. i've also read somewhere that the quantum mechanical states in our brains get messed up during MRI(?) scans, but we don't come out a babbling idiot after it.
i believe that there can be great advances, even further than what we prognosticate to be impossible, if we just look beyond the box of contraints we seem to be put ourselves in. thinking machines are very possible, not because of moore's law of added firepower, but though evolution of our current technologies and assumptions.
Did wavelets a few years ago in uni, so I hope I've not screwed up my information in the few years lag, but another few points to add to this excellent summary:
1) It has been proved that a wavelets can represent the theoretical minimum information for an image. Proof uses the information's counterpart of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That's right folks - you cannot get any more compressed than that - it simply isn't possible.
2) Unfortunately, finding the coefficients for the minimum possible representation is a bit hard on the computation side - so normally certain constraints are made like fixing the angles of the wavelet. However, decompression is pretty much standard in any case - easier. But nothing quite as close as FFT.
3) JPEG chops the picture into managable bits - you may get discontinuities at boundaries. Wavelets sweep across the picture, from big to small, gradually improving the quality at smaller areas. So you can get a nice smooth degradation of details if you decrease the size of the file - or in other words, if you are downloading incrementally, your picture kinda shimmers in nicely.
4) Wavelets have a normal like-curve. Normal like curves occur frequently in nature -- for example the human face can actually be represented by very few wavelets - the eyes, nose, mouth, face all fit quite nicely. Probably good for photos.
When you are threatened, it makes sense to close ranks with your allies and set up the fort.
So why this infighting? Windows NT caught up in the enterprise share because IBM, HP, Sun, BSD are too busy trying to compete with each other (or selling their propietary hardware) to bother with improvement or innovation. Starting Linux/BSD camps wouldn't to help.
Don't flame me, but I believe Win2000 represents a genuine threat to acceptability of Unix. Just because WinNT is crap now does not mean it will always be crap in the future - never underestimate M$ ability to improve and most especially to market and brainwash MIS managers. Also Win2000 got quite an impressive bit on the new features (rather if it really works still is yet to be seen).
Personally, I would just like to see our most talented guys putting their effort to Linux all the way and, sorry to say, screw BSD:)
Slashdot Mirror
> Just today I was asking how I could build a
;p
> computerized android robot head for under $700.
> Now you posted it for the bargan price of $600.
> You rock.
Yeah but does it suck?
I have a great respect for what he had achieved, against the odds.
:)
But the least I could do in deference during my 3 undergrad years, was NOT to be tempted to a photo opportunity each time I see him 'strolling' (more like zipping) along the Fens with his nurse...
Actually, it is:
Minesweeper
Consultant
Solitaire
Expert
They used a giant air-filled dirigible to airlift a huge diamond atop a pyramid in an imploding oasis.
Saw it in a documentary somewhere, I think.
Hailstorm user-licence: 50
:)
Internet connection: 20/month
Skript kiddie tools and software: 5000
The look on Bill Gates face when 10,000,000 credit cards numbers are compromised to the approx credit limit of 20,000 each -- PRICELESS.
There are some things that anyone can cock-up, but for everything else, there's Microsoft
LOL this is a good one someone mod this up
The problem is not "Explicit Lyrics" but other language-related problem: grammar. Already the technologically challenged citizens of Canada are left in bewildered incomprehension of the burgeoning tech jargon that shows no sign of abating. But the hell of technology acronym and jargon is now being inflamed and by a fiery mix of bad spelling and grammar into a conflagration of epic porportions. This duality further confuses the masses of people, as their lack of understanding of the underlying technology is further compounded by the grammatical incorrectness of its expression. According to Aryan Wind, spokesperson for the Campaign for Purity of Canadian English (CPCE),
this may lead to insecurity as they perceived their lack of comprehension of not just the technology but the language structure to reflect on an inferior intellect. Aryan fears that long term exposure to this phenomenon can causing lasting psychological damage.
Aryan singled out computer games as the major cause of the language depredations that exist in Canada today. "Computer games are the means in which these abhorrations of languages reaches the common masses," Aryan said. "Furthermore, computer games are specifically targeted at a generation at its most impressionable: our children, our future." Aryan noted that the recent advances of the Internet have further spread the problem, making the problem much more difficult to stem. "Already, these so-called 'h4xx0rs' speaks as if they are from a different planet." Aryan insisted that, "if left unregulated this problem fester and further alienate between Canadian citizens already fractured by the English/French divide."
Most Canadians apparently support the move. "We have a very good following among parents and educators," according to Aryan. "All your base are belong to us."
Remember the bit where she typed the 4-byte IP address in full view? I don't recall the number, but one if it is larger than 255.
I LOLed right there in the cinema, but then there must not have been many geeks around, because no one else seemed to have found it amusing...
:)
You're right, and if anyone think Napster is all for community service, better think again.
:)
From Napster's FAQ:
-------------------
Q: How does Napster make money?
A: Napster, Inc. has not chosen to make its business model public at this time. Napster, Inc. is a privately-held company.
That right folks, they are in it for the profit and I personally don't blame them, though I do have something against them using the 'open-everything' and 'us-against-those big medias' argument to set our geeky hearts aflutter.
In fact, I'm sure they are soooo glad that they have started to crackdown, like the time they were 'forced against their will but what can they do?' to sign-off their souls to Bertelmanns, as they can then use it as an excuse to start getting cracking on getting the money roll in. excellent ploy, i must say.
everyone, use opennap
> I'm about to receive a MS from NTU.
i want to receive my multibillion company too!
Shouldn't they be taxing paper too, considering the amount of potential 'damage' in copying copyrighted print...
(IN A SPACESHIP APPROACHING EVENT HORIZON. Professor Tackhead is explaining the concepts of black hole detection to his fellow disbelievers.)
Professor Tackhead: The folks at the Chandra X-Ray Observatory appear to have detected event horizons by comparing the X-ray luminosity of the accretion discs surrounding black-hole-based X-ray novae versus neutron-star-based X-ray novae during their phases of dormancy. X-ray novae are caused by ignition of fusion in the accretion discs of hot gas....
(horrible sucking-slurping sound)
Black Hole: SURRRRLLUPRRRPPPPPPPPP....
Professor and the rest: AIIIIAAARRRGGGHHHHH...
Black Hole: Blech! Ahhhhhh....
After the chaos in Florida, we need a company that is a no-nonsense, fair, has great integrity, no political connections, and most especially has a great history of making ultra-reliable and breathtakingly secure software.
Great choice, really
Answer: Just in case we ever need to view our genome sequence on IE
And if the human genome has about 3 gig wouldn't wrapping quaint bits of information blow it up by quite a bit? sorry but the idea seems to rank on the same idiocy level as XML
How do you get past the rat?
:(((((((
Java is pure beauty, and is rapidly becoming the lingua franca of all languages, so why restrict it to just CompSci??
How much more unambiguous it would be to parse *all* exam questions in Java!
function Discuss()
{
k = new King(Scotland);
m = Macbeth;
if (k != m)
Discuss = Murder(k);
}
writeln(Discuss());
whoops, wouldn't work.
i!Rz and iRz are both on. back to the drawing board....
Look at the occurence B and !B (! is reversal, both small size)
... probably a and A.
I think it is a direct mapping, i.e. If X -> A then X! -> a or if X -> a then X! -> A.
If you look, you will see all the Bs occuring in midword (where it can't possibly be capital) is B and not B!.
Now lets figure out what big/small, capital/small means....
My guess is that it is a letter substitution plus translations, governed by the characteristics like Big/Small, Capital/Not, Reversed/Not.
I bet 100+ years ago they didn't have networked supercomputers like we did now, so it should be a cinch. So someone with access the juice, please key in the schema and churn
1. Define degrees of freedom schema
-----------------------------------
a) Capital or not (0,1)
b) Big, Small (0,1)
c) Reversed, or not (0,1)
d) The letter (1..26)
2. Key in the data in this schema
---------------------------------
(1,1,0,D),(1,0,0,R),spc,...
3. Run the damn thing
---------------------
Using a standard dictionary substitution methods for the letters d), using various translations for a), b) and c).
Many of his other writings now seem silly, deliberately provocative, or just perplexingly obscure, such as his doctrine of panpsychism (belief that reality is constituted by the mind), which anticipated the teachings of Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza...
[snip]
I wouldn't call this silly.
Since after the renaissance, we have been going the 'empirical-is-so-cool' way without much of a pause to really reexamine it. Science led the way for a few centuries, and converted our minds, and the spirit of our times.
It was until the late 19th century when suddenly large holes were blown into the hiterto smooth course of science: quantum theory, incompleteness, etc.
Anyway: suddenly we are confronted with the issue again. Perhaps it is not all real? How can a photon be a particle and wave at the same time? How can observing something alters it irrevocably?
What I am saying is: we cannot discount such possibilities no matter what are sensibilities are at that time. And since Bruno epitomises the spirit of free-thought, unsheckled by the prevailing optimism, I think I have to disagree with the writer's opinion that Bruno's panpsychism is stupid.
Just my 3.14 cents worth.
since everybody like to quote penrose, i'll like to say that i've read Penrose (well not in its entirety with all the nasty bits :) and i do find some contentions with his arguments.
firstly, on the main argument, we should realize that all this breast-beating about limits of computability and halting problems are only in the context of turing machines (TM). yeah yeah all our computers are in that kind of form now, but it doesn't have to be in the future - quantum computers for example, can break these turing machine-hard problems in no time if harnessed.
penrose argument seems to be that our brain could be a complex bit of quantum machinery, and therefore is not subceptible/easy to recreate/copy/emulate thanks to various quantum mechanical properties etc. i find that there are very little evidence to support this -- we just don't know enough to qualify what penrose feels is right. i've also read somewhere that the quantum mechanical states in our brains get messed up during MRI(?) scans, but we don't come out a babbling idiot after it.
i believe that there can be great advances, even further than what we prognosticate to be impossible, if we just look beyond the box of contraints we seem to be put ourselves in. thinking machines are very possible, not because of moore's law of added firepower, but though evolution of our current technologies and assumptions.
Did wavelets a few years ago in uni, so I hope I've not screwed up my information in the few years lag, but another few points to add to this excellent summary:
1) It has been proved that a wavelets can represent the theoretical minimum information for an image. Proof uses the information's counterpart of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That's right folks - you cannot get any more compressed than that - it simply isn't possible.
2) Unfortunately, finding the coefficients for the minimum possible representation is a bit hard on the computation side - so normally certain constraints are made like fixing the angles of the wavelet. However, decompression is pretty much standard in any case - easier. But nothing quite as close as FFT.
3) JPEG chops the picture into managable bits - you may get discontinuities at boundaries. Wavelets sweep across the picture, from big to small, gradually improving the quality at smaller areas. So you can get a nice smooth degradation of details if you decrease the size of the file - or in other words, if you are downloading incrementally, your picture kinda shimmers in nicely.
4) Wavelets have a normal like-curve. Normal like curves occur frequently in nature -- for example the human face can actually be represented by very few wavelets - the eyes, nose, mouth, face all fit quite nicely. Probably good for photos.
When you are threatened, it makes sense to close ranks with your allies and set up the fort.
:)
So why this infighting? Windows NT caught up in the enterprise share because IBM, HP, Sun, BSD are too busy trying to compete with each other (or selling their propietary hardware) to bother with improvement or innovation. Starting Linux/BSD camps wouldn't to help.
Don't flame me, but I believe Win2000 represents a genuine threat to acceptability of Unix. Just because WinNT is crap now does not mean it will always be crap in the future - never underestimate M$ ability to improve and most especially to market and brainwash MIS managers. Also Win2000 got quite an impressive bit on the new features (rather if it really works still is yet to be seen).
Personally, I would just like to see our most talented guys putting their effort to Linux all the way and, sorry to say, screw BSD