How would you get clean state transitions?
on
Ternary Computing
·
· Score: 2
With a binary system, you can change from a 1 to 0 state, and a 0 to 1 state without having to pass through an intervening state. (You can call 1 high voltage, 0 low, or 1 a high tone and 0 a low tone) Only two states to worry about.
I don't see how one can design something as fast as a binary system, and still allow us to go from 0 to 2 without going through 1. If you are doing voltages, the intermediate value theorem forces you to go through state 1. Similarly if you are doing tones.
One can design a logic system, with "forbidden" state transitions. But then you would have to argue that "ternary logic with forbidden transitions" is significantly better than "binary logic." It seems to me that you would lose 90% of your advantage if you forbade 0 - 2 and 2 - 0 transitions.
Studies have shown that most students actually do best with a mix of group work and individual work.
The issue is that good group work contains within the implementation individual accountability (Johnson, Johnson, Smith). The group task should also be a task where it isn't EASIER for one person just to do it all, it should contain within it some room for controversy and debate (Brufee) or just the need for more than two hands or one brain.
One way I have been successful in fostering individual accountabilty for projects is this: Each student, at the end of the project, gets to assign 100 points to him/herself and the group members, based on what percentage of the work was done. Each turns their assessment in to me privately. If they all are roughly pulling their weight, then that is fine.
Another thing I do if there are several projects, is I put the slackers in one group. After the intitial "Duuuude! This isn't going to write itself" moment, the slacker groups often wind up doing VERY well together.
If you have had bad experiences with group work in college, think: Is it the concept of group work itself that was the problem, or was it the implementation?
"No, I don't think this is what companies want. Companies (at least ones that stay in business long enough to pay their employees) want results, and last I checked, they don't care how you accomplish them, as long as they're delivered on time and on budget."
This is false, in my opinion. A company that doesn't care how you accomplish your task will wind up with a poorly designed product from a global perspective. Yes, each "piece" will work from the perspective of its narrow-focused "it works and is on time" designer. But the documentation will be crap, and when it is time to update and redesign, the whole thing will go down like a house of cards.
The companies that are in for the long haul damn well DO care HOW you accomplish your results. They want something relatively kludge-free, they want something well-documented for your successors, and they want something that is done legally, so they don't get sued.
By your assertion, companies that "stay in business long enough to pay their employees" will be completely agreeable if you just plagurize a competitor's work, and deliver it on time and on budget. I don't believe that you think that is true.
Unlike other forms of spyware, this would be easy to resist... Wouldn't people who were concerned about their privacy just get in the habit of swirling their mouse around while reading web pages?
I can't give a logical reason why this particular technology disturbs me more than other types of spyware, but for some reason the idea of my mouse movements being tracked just makes my skin crawl... Does anyone else have that sort of gut-level revulsion?
"How would it work in practice? Just take a look at the internet. Next to zero regulation, backbones that in many areas are fixed resources, heavy commercialization, yet there are unlimited opportunities for individuals, non-profits, and other noncommercial organizations."
This is a tempting, but ultimately deceptive and bad analogy. When I put up a website, I am not interefering with the ability of other people to view yours.
If the airwaves were NOT regulated, then what is to stop me from broadcasting at the same frequency you are? If you start talking about protocols or laws, then you are sliding down the path to regulation.
The analogy may be between domain-names and airwaves, in that you can't have two people having the same domain name, nor have two neighbors on the same frequency. But domain names are highly regulated, with more rules coming down all the time. (In the old days, if you were the first person to think of registering captainkirk.com, you would be able to have it without being sued.)
Truly privatized airwaves would be a nightmare. Show me how there would be "unlimited opportunities for individuals and non-profits" without resorting to a dubious analogy. In a country where all the available frequencies are locked up by the half-dozen mega-conglomerates you grant would exist, how would I get my TV-show out there for people to see? And how do you know they would compete? No regulation means no anti-trust laws. Wouldn't they be better off cooperating with each other to screw the consumer?
I have less faith in conglomerates than you do, I suppose. I tend to be more objective about things like that. Right now, if the situation with monopolies and the airwaves get intolerable, I have the ability to take them back - I still get a vote. If you advocate "privatizing" them, you are, in effect, advocating taking my vote away from me, leaving their fate to people that are not elected. The airwaves belong just as much to me as they do to anybody else; don't be so eager about taking away my property.
I read slashdot all the time, and there is always an article about how some judge has ruled in favor of a wealthy entity's right to take away the privacy of an individual, followed by posts from libertarians saying that its okay that individuals don't have privacy rights in "the real world" as long as they do in theory.
That's fine. That's good. That's slashdot. I love it.
But now we have a situation where the Judges' rights to privacy are in jeopardy. And it seems most people are rallying to their defense. Send letters! Send email! Fight for their right to privacy!
I don't get it. This is almost Shakespearean irony - judges being forced to endure the consequences of an environment that they themselves helped to create. Perhaps the best way for them to see the results of their rulings on individual privacy is for them to experience what it is like to be deprived of that privacy. Why would we interfere with poetic justice?
When someone calls me on the phone, I have to deal with them right away... either to answer their question or to tell them that I can't answer them right away.
I vastly prefer email. I can deal with them when it is most convenient for me. If someone, such as a student or friend, has a question that requires thought, I can take my time to think of a good response without having to worry about them waiting on the other end of the line or my desk. If someone says something that has no relevance to me whatsoever, I can merely hit "delete" without having to say, "My, that is certainly interesting, but you know I have a deadline now so perhaps we can talk abou this later."
Email PERMITS me to take time off. As annoying as it is to come home to a stuffed inbox, it is MUCH more annoying to come home to many saved voice-mails. It doesn't take much practice to learn how to clear out an Inbox quickly... you can skim messages much quicker than you can skim voice mail.
There is, of course, a problem with people who email you constantly for every little thing - but that is easily dealt with. Don't respond.
"I hope they have made the next quantum leap in compression. I doubt it, but I hope."
Recall that a "quantum leap" is by definition the smallest possible leap. The next quantum leap in compression will be just compressing one more bit. Why hope for that?
"Here is the best way to get modded up on slashdot.
1) Say something like "sure I like linux but let's face it windows is more suitable for everybody"
2) say something republican
3) say something liberterian
4) say something funny
5) say something about how "slashdot is full of karma whores who moderate down pro MS posts" "
Sure, I like linux but let's face it, windows is more suitable for everybody. We must keep the economic embargo on Cuba because the only way to stop a communist dictatorship with an aging leader, set in his ways, is to isolate it from the world community. We must keep giving China MFN status because the only way to stop a communist dictatorship with an aging leader, set in his ways, is to bring it fully into the world community. Do autoerotic foot-fetishists say stupid things in public on purpose? Slashdot is full of karma whores who moderate down pro MS posts.
I lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for six years. I loved my city, and one of the things I took the most pride in was Borders. There was no other bookstore like it in the country.
It was very hard to get a job in Borders. You had to take a test of book-knowledge, and there was some prestige in getting a job there. The result was the most wonderful staff you could imagine.
"Hi, I've read all the Douglas Adams books and liked them, but lately I've been getting into kind of noir stuff... can you recommend a book for me?" "Sure. Have you ever heard of Robert Sheckley's Alternative Detective series?" (made up example)
The staff, the selection, the prices... Border's was a treasure. Then they became a chain. I remember once seeing some tourists standing outside the Borders, and a woman said, "Oh look, honey, they have a Borders here, too." But even after they became a chain, I still liked shopping there, because they were by far the best chain bookstore around.
And then there was the thing with the Union. And now this face-recognition stuff. I suppose even your favorite college bookstore has to grow up someday and become part of the establishment.
Re:A very simple number with the same property
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
Google couldn't find it, but it could be found with another word with a double o
A very simple number with the same property
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 2
Pi is not that unusual. Here is a simple number called (I believe) the Champernowe Constant
0.123456789101112131415161718192021222324...
After the decimal point we are, in effect, counting. Clearly, any string "35002134" will appear in the Champernowe constant, and infinitely often. (Anybody know where I got the sample string?)
Pi is an amazing number, clearly, but sometimes it is erroneously represented as the only number with the above property.
Marc is one of the best origamists in the country. He is doing a Winnie the Pooh series, and has done the Mos Eisley cantina band. I've seen him as part of a variety show in Minneapolis, where he will take requests from the audience, and fold anything requested. I have never seen him stumped.
There are people who, in their posts, seem to be saying two things: (1) Bezos does not deserve the award, because he is a greedy corporate business type, and money should have nothing to do with who deserves the award. AND (2) What is so great about Amazon.com? It doesn't make any money, like eBay does, so Bezos doesn't deserve the award. Am I the only person who sees quite the contradiction in those statements? Choose one or the other, but you aren't going to be very persuasive trying to defend both simultaneously.
Slashdot Mirror
With a binary system, you can change from a 1 to 0 state, and a 0 to 1 state without having to pass through an intervening state. (You can call 1 high voltage, 0 low, or 1 a high tone and 0 a low tone) Only two states to worry about.
I don't see how one can design something as fast as a binary system, and still allow us to go from 0 to 2 without going through 1. If you are doing voltages, the intermediate value theorem forces you to go through state 1. Similarly if you are doing tones.
One can design a logic system, with "forbidden" state transitions. But then you would have to argue that "ternary logic with forbidden transitions" is significantly better than "binary logic." It seems to me that you would lose 90% of your advantage if you forbade 0 - 2 and 2 - 0 transitions.
Studies have shown that most students actually do best with a mix of group work and individual work.
The issue is that good group work contains within the implementation individual accountability (Johnson, Johnson, Smith). The group task should also be a task where it isn't EASIER for one person just to do it all, it should contain within it some room for controversy and debate (Brufee) or just the need for more than two hands or one brain.
One way I have been successful in fostering individual accountabilty for projects is this: Each student, at the end of the project, gets to assign 100 points to him/herself and the group members, based on what percentage of the work was done. Each turns their assessment in to me privately. If they all are roughly pulling their weight, then that is fine.
Another thing I do if there are several projects, is I put the slackers in one group. After the intitial "Duuuude! This isn't going to write itself" moment, the slacker groups often wind up doing VERY well together.
If you have had bad experiences with group work in college, think: Is it the concept of group work itself that was the problem, or was it the implementation?
"No, I don't think this is what companies want. Companies (at least ones that stay in business long enough to pay their employees) want results, and last I checked, they don't care how you accomplish them, as long as they're delivered on time and on budget."
This is false, in my opinion. A company that doesn't care how you accomplish your task will wind up with a poorly designed product from a global perspective. Yes, each "piece" will work from the perspective of its narrow-focused "it works and is on time" designer. But the documentation will be crap, and when it is time to update and redesign, the whole thing will go down like a house of cards.
The companies that are in for the long haul damn well DO care HOW you accomplish your results. They want something relatively kludge-free, they want something well-documented for your successors, and they want something that is done legally, so they don't get sued.
By your assertion, companies that "stay in business long enough to pay their employees" will be completely agreeable if you just plagurize a competitor's work, and deliver it on time and on budget. I don't believe that you think that is true.
Unlike other forms of spyware, this would be easy to resist... Wouldn't people who were concerned about their privacy just get in the habit of swirling their mouse around while reading web pages?
I can't give a logical reason why this particular technology disturbs me more than other types of spyware, but for some reason the idea of my mouse movements being tracked just makes my skin crawl... Does anyone else have that sort of gut-level revulsion?
"How would it work in practice? Just take a look at the internet. Next to zero regulation, backbones that in many areas are fixed resources, heavy commercialization, yet there are unlimited opportunities for individuals, non-profits, and other noncommercial organizations."
This is a tempting, but ultimately deceptive and bad analogy. When I put up a website, I am not interefering with the ability of other people to view yours.
If the airwaves were NOT regulated, then what is to stop me from broadcasting at the same frequency you are? If you start talking about protocols or laws, then you are sliding down the path to regulation.
The analogy may be between domain-names and airwaves, in that you can't have two people having the same domain name, nor have two neighbors on the same frequency. But domain names are highly regulated, with more rules coming down all the time. (In the old days, if you were the first person to think of registering captainkirk.com, you would be able to have it without being sued.)
Truly privatized airwaves would be a nightmare. Show me how there would be "unlimited opportunities for individuals and non-profits" without resorting to a dubious analogy. In a country where all the available frequencies are locked up by the half-dozen mega-conglomerates you grant would exist, how would I get my TV-show out there for people to see? And how do you know they would compete? No regulation means no anti-trust laws. Wouldn't they be better off cooperating with each other to screw the consumer?
I have less faith in conglomerates than you do, I suppose. I tend to be more objective about things like that. Right now, if the situation with monopolies and the airwaves get intolerable, I have the ability to take them back - I still get a vote. If you advocate "privatizing" them, you are, in effect, advocating taking my vote away from me, leaving their fate to people that are not elected. The airwaves belong just as much to me as they do to anybody else; don't be so eager about taking away my property.
No joke here; I don't understand.
I read slashdot all the time, and there is always an article about how some judge has ruled in favor of a wealthy entity's right to take away the privacy of an individual, followed by posts from libertarians saying that its okay that individuals don't have privacy rights in "the real world" as long as they do in theory.
That's fine. That's good. That's slashdot. I love it.
But now we have a situation where the Judges' rights to privacy are in jeopardy. And it seems most people are rallying to their defense. Send letters! Send email! Fight for their right to privacy!
I don't get it. This is almost Shakespearean irony - judges being forced to endure the consequences of an environment that they themselves helped to create. Perhaps the best way for them to see the results of their rulings on individual privacy is for them to experience what it is like to be deprived of that privacy. Why would we interfere with poetic justice?
DJS
When someone calls me on the phone, I have to deal with them right away... either to answer their question or to tell them that I can't answer them right away.
I vastly prefer email. I can deal with them when it is most convenient for me. If someone, such as a student or friend, has a question that requires thought, I can take my time to think of a good response without having to worry about them waiting on the other end of the line or my desk. If someone says something that has no relevance to me whatsoever, I can merely hit "delete" without having to say, "My, that is certainly interesting, but you know I have a deadline now so perhaps we can talk abou this later."
Email PERMITS me to take time off. As annoying as it is to come home to a stuffed inbox, it is MUCH more annoying to come home to many saved voice-mails. It doesn't take much practice to learn how to clear out an Inbox quickly... you can skim messages much quicker than you can skim voice mail.
There is, of course, a problem with people who email you constantly for every little thing - but that is easily dealt with. Don't respond.
DJS
"I hope they have made the next quantum leap in compression. I doubt it, but I hope."
Recall that a "quantum leap" is by definition the smallest possible leap. The next quantum leap in compression will be just compressing one more bit. Why hope for that?
"Here is the best way to get modded up on slashdot.
1) Say something like "sure I like linux but let's face it windows is more suitable for everybody"
2) say something republican
3) say something liberterian
4) say something funny
5) say something about how "slashdot is full of karma whores who moderate down pro MS posts" "
Sure, I like linux but let's face it, windows is more suitable for everybody. We must keep the economic embargo on Cuba because the only way to stop a communist dictatorship with an aging leader, set in his ways, is to isolate it from the world community. We must keep giving China MFN status because the only way to stop a communist dictatorship with an aging leader, set in his ways, is to bring it fully into the world community. Do autoerotic foot-fetishists say stupid things in public on purpose? Slashdot is full of karma whores who moderate down pro MS posts.
I lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for six years. I loved my city, and one of the things I took the most pride in was Borders. There was no other bookstore like it in the country.
It was very hard to get a job in Borders. You had to take a test of book-knowledge, and there was some prestige in getting a job there. The result was the most wonderful staff you could imagine.
"Hi, I've read all the Douglas Adams books and liked them, but lately I've been getting into kind of noir stuff... can you recommend a book for me?" "Sure. Have you ever heard of Robert Sheckley's Alternative Detective series?" (made up example)
The staff, the selection, the prices... Border's was a treasure. Then they became a chain. I remember once seeing some tourists standing outside the Borders, and a woman said, "Oh look, honey, they have a Borders here, too." But even after they became a chain, I still liked shopping there, because they were by far the best chain bookstore around.
And then there was the thing with the Union. And now this face-recognition stuff. I suppose even your favorite college bookstore has to grow up someday and become part of the establishment.
Google couldn't find it, but it could be found with another word with a double o
Pi is not that unusual. Here is a simple number called (I believe) the Champernowe Constant
0.123456789101112131415161718192021222324...
After the decimal point we are, in effect, counting. Clearly, any string "35002134" will appear in the Champernowe constant, and infinitely often. (Anybody know where I got the sample string?)
Pi is an amazing number, clearly, but sometimes it is erroneously represented as the only number with the above property.
DJS
http://www.dougshaw.com
Marc is one of the best origamists in the country. He is doing a Winnie the Pooh series, and has done the Mos Eisley cantina band. I've seen him as part of a variety show in Minneapolis, where he will take requests from the audience, and fold anything requested. I have never seen him stumped.
Simple explanation: It was will have been changed.
There are people who, in their posts, seem to be saying two things: (1) Bezos does not deserve the award, because he is a greedy corporate business type, and money should have nothing to do with who deserves the award. AND (2) What is so great about Amazon.com? It doesn't make any money, like eBay does, so Bezos doesn't deserve the award. Am I the only person who sees quite the contradiction in those statements? Choose one or the other, but you aren't going to be very persuasive trying to defend both simultaneously.
This posting on memes contained the new adjective "bullshitical." I pray that that particular meme does not see fit to propogate.