AS&E says the system is safe for operators and subjects, and that "one scan of the ZBV is equivalent to flying in an airplane at altitude for two minutes."
and my general understanding is even if you were exposed to a dosage from one of these machines, it would be equivalent to a chest x-ray or less," McCabe told FoxNews.com.
The above two are not the same. Assuming normal airline altitudes, it takes hours of flying to get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest x-ray.
"It was a secondary screening mechanism for trucks going into a loading dock
So if your job requires you to drive a truck into the loading dock every day, it better be much lower than "chest x ray" levels.
One of my theories is each single neuron is actually very smart. Problem is each neuron can't say or do very much as it is. Of course this is more of a joke theory:).
But another of my theories is similar to Jeff's. e.g. the brain constructs models of the outside world and tries to predict stuff. And consciousness might be what happens when the brain tries to recursively predict itself.
Maybe the first mirror is "self", once that is sorted out the rest follows. e.g. "mirror" the outside world via your first order senses (sight, touch etc - similar to pixels, voxels, lines etc- smell is very interesting though:) ). You also mirror the world on the perception level, interpretation level, predictive level and so on.
quote: There will never be a wm that "sets the standard" because interface choice is too personal.
FYI, it's called Windows. It's the defacto standard whether people like it or not.
With it, Tech support can tell users to click on start (and assume it's on the left bottom corner), press "r", and type cmd, press enter, then type ipconfig/all, press enter, and then read off the IP or mac addresses.
Good luck "remote controlling" a user on Linux. Sure eventually you can get the user to find "Terminal" or "Xterm" or "Konsole" or "whatever" somewhere. Costs more to do so.
Nobody sane wants "Desktop Linux" on thousands of corporate desktops - you almost have to fork your own distro (with the associated problems). Since they keep changing stuff and often for "not good enough" reasons.
FWIW, I'm not too happy with Windows 7, but with competition like "Desktop Linux" no thanks. As for OSX, I think Apple also likes to change things often.
Describing this as getting sued for outsmarting an algo is pretty misleading. The traders in question did find some flaws in the algo, but rather than exploiting them directly to profit from the algo machine, they used the algo to manipulate the market as a whole, so they could profit from that. They understood what would happen when they started manipulating the algo, and they should have understood that market manipulation of this kind illegal.
Quote: "High-frequency traders often confound other investors by issuing and then canceling orders almost simultaneously. Loopholes in market rules give high-speed investors an early glance at how others are trading. And their computers can essentially bully slower investors into giving up profits -- and then disappear before anyone even knows they were there"
Sure looks like one rule for the HFTs and another for the rest.
If you don't think the HFTs do all that and worse, you can google for evidence yourself.
You've left out an important problem: figuring out which branches wouldn't break when you jump and grab them, and how far from the trunk can you grab them and still be safe, what speeds can you be travelling at etc.
Now, program a computer to do better than a human, under variable daylight conditions:). Bonus points if your system beats a gibbon at it.
Anyway, to me it's not so much calculation as of simulation. I believe we (including many animals) create mental models of stuff we have to predict.
Yes it's still calculation in a way, but that's like saying building a scale model to predict something is calculation.
Once you've got a good model you can do all sorts of stuff and still get results very quickly.
Consciousness might be the result of fancy recursive self-modeling, throw in quantum parallel computing (which might be useful for running simulations in parallel) for extra buzzword goodness:).
Yeah. Another thing though - current accepted theory is the universe is expanding (at least the part we're in). So if you go back in time, I wonder much the size difference is and what impact it would have. I suppose if you go back millions of years it might be more significant than just a few centuries.
However the thing I really don't get is, why should there be time as a dimension itself?
Say you move an object from A to B. It's moved. Why should the universe store history/state so that you would be able to go back to that very point where the object was still at A?
Can anyone explain it to me in simple terms? I'm not a physicist.
When those algo/HFT systems have bugs or lose big a) the stock market rolls back the trades[1] b) the small timers beating those algorithms get sued.[2]
But they don't do that when the small timers make mistakes or the algo/HFT systems beat the small timers.
Just more evidence that Ted Dziuba does not know what he is talking about.
He should move to top management or write management books and spout his "8 ingredients for success".
Programmers on the other hand know that it's often the mastery of the details which is important for getting things to work and _keep_ working reliably, and management of complexity. Not saying crap like "different configuration of _roughly_ eight ingredients".
Now if you don't care about accuracy, reliability and error handling then most problems become very simple:).
This would have precluded the Americans have entering WWII in the European theater. Can you say that would be a reasonable outcome? Public opinion polls at the time reflect that the majority of America would never have voted for war,
What makes you so sure?
If the leaders can not convince the public for the need of war by presenting clear reasons, facts and arguments, then I don't think the country should go to war.
If there really is good reason for a war, and the leaders can't present good arguments, then it's a failure of the leadership. They shouldn't be leading.
If the leaders do present a very good case but the voters don't want a war then if the leaders think it is worth dying for they should put their necks on the line _first_, hold my suggested "war" referendum, then maybe the voters may change their minds and be more convinced.
Otherwise if the leaders don't think it's risking their own lives for, why should anyone believe that the country should go to war?
No I didn't. My proposal is for reducing unwanted wars. Whether for the right or wrong reasons, if the whole country wants a war they get a war. Democracy and all that.
Where: [seconds I'm willing to wait for response] > [swap size in megabytes]/ [typical swap device IO throughput in megabytes per second].
I believe swap access is often not so sequential.
I'd rather run out of memory than have everything start running from disk.
I still keep swap, so that if my machine starts to swap and slow down a bit I know I have a problem, and maybe I might have time to kill the correct process(es) rather than wait for Linux to decide which process to kill:).
You misunderstand. My proposal is not about stopping wars. Read it again.
As for the claim that 70% supported the most recent Iraq war, maybe the polls were right or maybe they were diebolded.
So a proper referendum would be better and more accurate.
Because if 70% of the US people were really in favour of the war, then it's justified if Iraqis actually sneaked over to the US and killed civilians and destroyed civilian structures.
Lastly, I know my proposal is unlikely to ever come to pass, but despite its flaws it's certainly better than the status quo.
While that's certainly true, China has demonstrated their interest in harming intellectual property-based American businesses as well, for instance by stealing trade secrets.
Actually the fact is chinese companies copy each other's stuff whenever they can and they think it might make them money.
From what I see it's not really a concerted effort to rip the US off.
It's mainly about making money. If ripping off X will help they'd do it. Whether X is some US/German/Chinese/Japanese company doesn't really matter.
So saying they have an "interest in harming" american businesses is like claiming someone has an interest in harming american cows when they eat a burger. They just want a burger. I doubt most care that the patty is really made of american cows.
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on death-row.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatures to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages: 1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly. 2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it. 3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war. 4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
Tell the character drawing routine the row and column and the 7-bit character code and easy as JSR, that character would appear on the screen.
The Apple II was even simpler than that. You just wrote a byte in a memory address in the screen range (0x400-0x7ff was the default IIRC) and a character would appear on the screen.
Want to do graphics? Similar thing, but you read or write to certain memory addresses to change the graphics mode, then you store bytes create blocks or pixels.
It's because of Woz - most stuff was done in software to save on hardware. Sound, I/O (disk, tape, joystick/paddle).
Slashdot Mirror
AS&E says the system is safe for operators and subjects, and that "one scan of the ZBV is equivalent to flying in an airplane at altitude for two minutes."
and my general understanding is even if you were exposed to a dosage from one of these machines, it would be equivalent to a chest x-ray or less," McCabe told FoxNews.com.
The above two are not the same. Assuming normal airline altitudes, it takes hours of flying to get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest x-ray.
"It was a secondary screening mechanism for trucks going into a loading dock
So if your job requires you to drive a truck into the loading dock every day, it better be much lower than "chest x ray" levels.
Some related discussion here: http://ask.metafilter.com/142917/Cumulative-backscatter-Xray-risk
One of my theories is each single neuron is actually very smart. Problem is each neuron can't say or do very much as it is. Of course this is more of a joke theory :).
But another of my theories is similar to Jeff's. e.g. the brain constructs models of the outside world and tries to predict stuff. And consciousness might be what happens when the brain tries to recursively predict itself.
Thing is, how do these models get constructed? I suppose it is stuff similar to the mirror neurons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Maybe the first mirror is "self", once that is sorted out the rest follows. e.g. "mirror" the outside world via your first order senses (sight, touch etc - similar to pixels, voxels, lines etc- smell is very interesting though :) ). You also mirror the world on the perception level, interpretation level, predictive level and so on.
quote: There will never be a wm that "sets the standard" because interface choice is too personal.
/all, press enter, and then read off the IP or mac addresses.
FYI, it's called Windows. It's the defacto standard whether people like it or not.
With it, Tech support can tell users to click on start (and assume it's on the left bottom corner), press "r", and type cmd, press enter, then type ipconfig
Good luck "remote controlling" a user on Linux. Sure eventually you can get the user to find "Terminal" or "Xterm" or "Konsole" or "whatever" somewhere. Costs more to do so.
Nobody sane wants "Desktop Linux" on thousands of corporate desktops - you almost have to fork your own distro (with the associated problems). Since they keep changing stuff and often for "not good enough" reasons.
FWIW, I'm not too happy with Windows 7, but with competition like "Desktop Linux" no thanks. As for OSX, I think Apple also likes to change things often.
"Server Linux" on the other hand:
for ((i=1; i<255; i++)) do
echo "###$i###" >> foo
ssh -i ~/sshkeys/server-$i.key user@10.0.0.$i "ifconfig -a" >> foo
echo "###EOR###" >> foo
done
on windows 7, you can enabled the windows 2000 / nt / 98 theme and it looks and acts *exactly* like windows 2000
No it doesn't. Windows 7 just makes the skin and widgets look like Win2K, but the GUI still mainly behaves like Win 7.
On XP, classic mode does make it work like Win2K - start menu works like Win2K, you can get explorer to work without the webview stuff.
Describing this as getting sued for outsmarting an algo is pretty misleading. The traders in question did find some flaws in the algo, but rather than exploiting them directly to profit from the algo machine, they used the algo to manipulate the market as a whole, so they could profit from that. They understood what would happen when they started manipulating the algo, and they should have understood that market manipulation of this kind illegal.
Misleading? Illegal?
Go see one of the links I posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html?_r=1
Quote: "High-frequency traders often confound other investors by issuing and then canceling orders almost simultaneously. Loopholes in market rules give high-speed investors an early glance at how others are trading. And their computers can essentially bully slower investors into giving up profits -- and then disappear before anyone even knows they were there"
Sure looks like one rule for the HFTs and another for the rest.
If you don't think the HFTs do all that and worse, you can google for evidence yourself.
You've left out an important problem: figuring out which branches wouldn't break when you jump and grab them, and how far from the trunk can you grab them and still be safe, what speeds can you be travelling at etc.
:). Bonus points if your system beats a gibbon at it.
:).
Now, program a computer to do better than a human, under variable daylight conditions
Anyway, to me it's not so much calculation as of simulation. I believe we (including many animals) create mental models of stuff we have to predict.
Yes it's still calculation in a way, but that's like saying building a scale model to predict something is calculation.
Once you've got a good model you can do all sorts of stuff and still get results very quickly.
Consciousness might be the result of fancy recursive self-modeling, throw in quantum parallel computing (which might be useful for running simulations in parallel) for extra buzzword goodness
Yeah. Another thing though - current accepted theory is the universe is expanding (at least the part we're in). So if you go back in time, I wonder much the size difference is and what impact it would have. I suppose if you go back millions of years it might be more significant than just a few centuries.
However the thing I really don't get is, why should there be time as a dimension itself?
Say you move an object from A to B. It's moved. Why should the universe store history/state so that you would be able to go back to that very point where the object was still at A?
Can anyone explain it to me in simple terms? I'm not a physicist.
It's just front-running and other normally illegal stuff by a different name.
Effectively a tax on everyone else.
Actually what is most disgusting is:
When those algo/HFT systems have bugs or lose big
a) the stock market rolls back the trades[1]
b) the small timers beating those algorithms get sued.[2]
But they don't do that when the small timers make mistakes or the algo/HFT systems beat the small timers.
Even though many of the HFT bunch are doing dubious stuff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6456QB20100507
[2] http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/security/3244186/norwegian-traders-convicted-for-outsmarting-us-stock-broker-algorithm/
Not so funny come voting time.
Sometimes they're not actually making money from selling stuff.
They're making money from ads, so if you're spending extra time wading through fluff they make more money.
Of course if advertisers had a clue, those sites would make a lot less money.
But meanwhile...
Just more evidence that Ted Dziuba does not know what he is talking about.
:).
He should move to top management or write management books and spout his "8 ingredients for success".
Programmers on the other hand know that it's often the mastery of the details which is important for getting things to work and _keep_ working reliably, and management of complexity. Not saying crap like "different configuration of _roughly_ eight ingredients".
Now if you don't care about accuracy, reliability and error handling then most problems become very simple
Friends or no friends, forever is a very very very long time.
Any imperfection is magnified by infinity.
So if there really is eternal life after death, it's going to be bad if you are not transformed to be able to enjoy it.
This would have precluded the Americans have entering WWII in the European theater. Can you say that would be a reasonable outcome? Public opinion polls at the time reflect that the majority of America would never have voted for war,
What makes you so sure?
If the leaders can not convince the public for the need of war by presenting clear reasons, facts and arguments, then I don't think the country should go to war.
If there really is good reason for a war, and the leaders can't present good arguments, then it's a failure of the leadership. They shouldn't be leading.
If the leaders do present a very good case but the voters don't want a war then if the leaders think it is worth dying for they should put their necks on the line _first_, hold my suggested "war" referendum, then maybe the voters may change their minds and be more convinced.
Otherwise if the leaders don't think it's risking their own lives for, why should anyone believe that the country should go to war?
Leadership by example.
If you think that's a problem, you have a problem with Democracy.
My proposal doesn't allow the voters to start wars. The leaders still have to start the process, the voters have to approve.
As I said:
No I didn't. My proposal is for reducing unwanted wars.
Whether for the right or wrong reasons, if the whole country wants a war they get a war. Democracy and all that.
For me I just use a smaller swap.
Where: [seconds I'm willing to wait for response] > [swap size in megabytes]/ [typical swap device IO throughput in megabytes per second].
I believe swap access is often not so sequential.
I'd rather run out of memory than have everything start running from disk.
I still keep swap, so that if my machine starts to swap and slow down a bit I know I have a problem, and maybe I might have time to kill the correct process(es) rather than wait for Linux to decide which process to kill :).
You misunderstand. My proposal is not about stopping wars. Read it again.
As for the claim that 70% supported the most recent Iraq war, maybe the polls were right or maybe they were diebolded.
So a proper referendum would be better and more accurate.
Because if 70% of the US people were really in favour of the war, then it's justified if Iraqis actually sneaked over to the US and killed civilians and destroyed civilian structures.
Lastly, I know my proposal is unlikely to ever come to pass, but despite its flaws it's certainly better than the status quo.
No I didn't. My proposal is for reducing unwanted wars.
Whether for the right or wrong reasons, if the whole country wants a war they get a war. Democracy and all that.
While that's certainly true, China has demonstrated their interest in harming intellectual property-based American businesses as well, for instance by stealing trade secrets.
Actually the fact is chinese companies copy each other's stuff whenever they can and they think it might make them money.
From what I see it's not really a concerted effort to rip the US off.
It's mainly about making money. If ripping off X will help they'd do it. Whether X is some US/German/Chinese/Japanese company doesn't really matter.
So saying they have an "interest in harming" american businesses is like claiming someone has an interest in harming american cows when they eat a burger. They just want a burger. I doubt most care that the patty is really made of american cows.
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on death-row.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatures to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
arXiv is a nerdier version of "Firehose" minus the comments :).
Tell the character drawing routine the row and column and the 7-bit character code and easy as JSR, that character would appear on the screen.
The Apple II was even simpler than that. You just wrote a byte in a memory address in the screen range (0x400-0x7ff was the default IIRC) and a character would appear on the screen.
Want to do graphics? Similar thing, but you read or write to certain memory addresses to change the graphics mode, then you store bytes create blocks or pixels.
It's because of Woz - most stuff was done in software to save on hardware. Sound, I/O (disk, tape, joystick/paddle).
What issues were you having with virtualbox?
Oops, just realized you have instructions on your homepage...
Doh.