afaict, doesn't work with non-CRTs, but they died a long time before that (you say duke nukem, but i remember them only all the way back from the days of the C=64). i'd guess that holding it up in the air like that for long periods with precision was very hard, making it useless for art (enter the tablet). likewise the lightpen could be lost/stolen/dropped, making it undesirable for industrial/POS (enter the touchscreen).
too bad. you want a government-enforced monopoly, you have to play by the quite reasonable rules, and it's just a sad coincidence about your name. what's with corporate entitlement these days?
so i guess i shouldn't teach my (rhetorical) child about what i've learned in life. i mean, since he didn't take the risks i did, it would be unethical.
what a bunch of hooey. what's unethical about freedom of association?
there was a paper about combining a (crappy) machine translation with low-skilled workers, who natively understand the target language, to patch up the glaring flaws. the idea is that _most_ of the errors made by the machine don't require understanding of the source language to detect. of course you lose out on anything 'deep' or artistic in the source language, and i would be hesitant to trust it for scientific papers or legal documents, but it's an interesting idea.
it's a perfume oil, not perfume. you can either apply it sparingly or dilute it with alcohol yourself at, say, 1:15 to 1:30-ish, so it's about equivalent to 100mL of the stuff at the drugstore.
also, perfume is a luxury good commanding luxury prices; this line in particular is catering to a very limited market...
I think its alright to have a few different systems in the world. Sure, there is an attractiveness to consolidation. But what are we going to do when we encounter aliens? Demand that they switch to the metric system? I'm actually serious. I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow or even in the next decade or century, but eventually it will. There is a lot to be said for having a tolerance for the differences among cultures and retaining those differences.
jesus h christ this takes the cake for stupidity in a slashdot comment. anyone familiar with the concept of a logarithm can trivially bootstrap up this "ability" if and when it's necessary, and hopefully this would include a working proportion of engineers who could then write a futureblog about how to do it and get on futuredigg and then wow, look at that, we're ready to face the aliens... i mean, apart from language, diet, and whether their political/biological/geological agendas are compatible with our continued free existence.
but maybe you didn't mean any real mathematical difficulty. maybe you are actually claiming that _standardizing on a measurement system_ will make humanity more intolerant. wow. that's a real concern you've discovered there. yup, i know that the most glaring difference between me and my colleagues is that we grew up using different fucking measurement systems and that that puts a real chasm between us, and it's not just a matter of multiplying by ~4.5/10 or whatever. christ. what kind of homogeneous utopia/dystopia do you live in, where measurement systems even rank on the scale of cultural differences?
this is interesting to me, thanks. my field, statistics, has its own version of this precisive/nonprecisive distinction; frequentism is usually approached as a minimax process, wherein ideally the error (i.e. false positives) is bounded over all possible deviations from the model as claimed, i.e. engineered to be nonprecisive. by contrast, bayesianism has more detailed models but at the cost of a sort of precisivism: the interpretation of the posterior probabilities require total acceptance of the model.
nonetheless i am dubious of whether any meaningful nonprecisive results can be derived in economics - it's hard enough in statistics which is extremely dry by comparison... do you have any strong examples?
yes, i think that the regret-based model is a big step in this direction (if the actors behaved "rationally" with perfect information their regret would always be 0...), together with imperfect information and bounded rationality models.
anyway, any model beats pie-in-the-sky idealism imho.
yup. all of this is MUCH less "autistic" than economics has ever been before.
unfortunately i've not had the opportunity to implement a regret-driven system although they seem interesting for longitudinal data. the major problem in the TD-gammon program seems to have been tweaking the attribution function, i.e. learning exactly what to assign as the cause of my regret. fun stuff.
i wouldn't go as far as to claim that an ai feels anything yet. i wonder if feeling or cognition will emerge first in an "artificial" system (or rather which one we will recognize first...).
what's your point? any rational model is going to be based on some restrictive assumptions. would you rather that economists just do what feels right to them, or that economics stops existing, or what? would this somehow be less negligent? or let me guess, if only economists agreed with your personal view of the world, everything would be better, right?
if you don't like artificial rules, you should appreciate that regret-based learning is a more flexible setting than standard game theory; for example, it allows a natural formulation of imperfect information and adaptation.
here i am feeding the troll, but the best AI for backgammon is trained by regret-based reinforcement learning (it's needed since the dice rolls blow up the search space for standard perfect-information strategies): http://www.research.ibm.com/massive/tdl.html. in this case the regret-function is unknown and is stochastically approximated ("learned") by repeated play.
it's notable that unlike chess AI which is considered effective but unnatural, this backgammon AI is considered to play mostly "like a human" and its play has actually inspired new strategies for human backgammon players.
regret-based methods are typically heuristic, and i'd call them much less "autistic" than, say, infinitely-rational nash agents or game tree pruners.
it's possible that columbia just doesn't want to make a mistake or get tangled up in red tape over a nonprofitable move; crypto still technically needs to be submitted to the government for approval; it's just a rubberstamp for open source projects.
or it could be standard market segmentation tricks. allow a practically-identical version for the technically-proficient hoi polloi with less liability, while using FUD to sell the Official Version to conservative firms and large companies to whom the cost is negligible. even though there's no support now, a lot of companies (ok, probably more like a few companies) will still have Kermit 95 as a requisite and, hey, it's almost free money, since columbia has a central office maintaining downloads anyway.
their food is expensive, even by NYC standards, and often not very fresh; i think that the logistics for books and electronics just don't translate well. i wouldn't buy, say, vegetable oil at amazon, much less meat or vegetables.
"I've been a loyal customer for years and was excited to get a job there [at a call center]"
Wow. You're either droolingly stupid or amazingly naive (or this is a really weird troll). I hope it's just naivety, and that you learned something very important. hint: it's not just amazon; by this standard, all human collectivities (not just private companies) are guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
students steal their movies, and apple knows this. no blu-ray necessary.
afaict, doesn't work with non-CRTs, but they died a long time before that (you say duke nukem, but i remember them only all the way back from the days of the C=64). i'd guess that holding it up in the air like that for long periods with precision was very hard, making it useless for art (enter the tablet). likewise the lightpen could be lost/stolen/dropped, making it undesirable for industrial/POS (enter the touchscreen).
too bad. you want a government-enforced monopoly, you have to play by the quite reasonable rules, and it's just a sad coincidence about your name. what's with corporate entitlement these days?
so i guess i shouldn't teach my (rhetorical) child about what i've learned in life. i mean, since he didn't take the risks i did, it would be unethical.
what a bunch of hooey. what's unethical about freedom of association?
there was a paper about combining a (crappy) machine translation with low-skilled workers, who natively understand the target language, to patch up the glaring flaws. the idea is that _most_ of the errors made by the machine don't require understanding of the source language to detect. of course you lose out on anything 'deep' or artistic in the source language, and i would be hesitant to trust it for scientific papers or legal documents, but it's an interesting idea.
i don't think that public institutions should be offering MBAs at all, but whatever.
so do it through FSU then.
also, "for a writer to be labeled as a science fiction writer, he needs only to notice that technology exists."
it's a perfume oil, not perfume. you can either apply it sparingly or dilute it with alcohol yourself at, say, 1:15 to 1:30-ish, so it's about equivalent to 100mL of the stuff at the drugstore.
also, perfume is a luxury good commanding luxury prices; this line in particular is catering to a very limited market...
I think its alright to have a few different systems in the world. Sure, there is an attractiveness to consolidation. But what are we going to do when we encounter aliens? Demand that they switch to the metric system? I'm actually serious. I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow or even in the next decade or century, but eventually it will. There is a lot to be said for having a tolerance for the differences among cultures and retaining those differences.
jesus h christ this takes the cake for stupidity in a slashdot comment. anyone familiar with the concept of a logarithm can trivially bootstrap up this "ability" if and when it's necessary, and hopefully this would include a working proportion of engineers who could then write a futureblog about how to do it and get on futuredigg and then wow, look at that, we're ready to face the aliens ... i mean, apart from language, diet, and whether their political/biological/geological agendas are compatible with our continued free existence.
but maybe you didn't mean any real mathematical difficulty. maybe you are actually claiming that _standardizing on a measurement system_ will make humanity more intolerant. wow. that's a real concern you've discovered there. yup, i know that the most glaring difference between me and my colleagues is that we grew up using different fucking measurement systems and that that puts a real chasm between us, and it's not just a matter of multiplying by ~4.5/10 or whatever. christ. what kind of homogeneous utopia/dystopia do you live in, where measurement systems even rank on the scale of cultural differences?
well, yeah, the former wouldn't be a very accurate model of human behavior. :-/ that's not the economists' fault.
also, this has nothing to do with externalities.
this is interesting to me, thanks. my field, statistics, has its own version of this precisive/nonprecisive distinction; frequentism is usually approached as a minimax process, wherein ideally the error (i.e. false positives) is bounded over all possible deviations from the model as claimed, i.e. engineered to be nonprecisive. by contrast, bayesianism has more detailed models but at the cost of a sort of precisivism: the interpretation of the posterior probabilities require total acceptance of the model.
nonetheless i am dubious of whether any meaningful nonprecisive results can be derived in economics - it's hard enough in statistics which is extremely dry by comparison... do you have any strong examples?
yes, i think that the regret-based model is a big step in this direction (if the actors behaved "rationally" with perfect information their regret would always be 0...), together with imperfect information and bounded rationality models.
anyway, any model beats pie-in-the-sky idealism imho.
what pclminion said. also: "this graphing can be scripted and scheduled."
yup. all of this is MUCH less "autistic" than economics has ever been before.
unfortunately i've not had the opportunity to implement a regret-driven system although they seem interesting for longitudinal data. the major problem in the TD-gammon program seems to have been tweaking the attribution function, i.e. learning exactly what to assign as the cause of my regret. fun stuff.
i wouldn't go as far as to claim that an ai feels anything yet. i wonder if feeling or cognition will emerge first in an "artificial" system (or rather which one we will recognize first...).
what's your point? any rational model is going to be based on some restrictive assumptions. would you rather that economists just do what feels right to them, or that economics stops existing, or what? would this somehow be less negligent? or let me guess, if only economists agreed with your personal view of the world, everything would be better, right?
if you don't like artificial rules, you should appreciate that regret-based learning is a more flexible setting than standard game theory; for example, it allows a natural formulation of imperfect information and adaptation.
here i am feeding the troll, but the best AI for backgammon is trained by regret-based reinforcement learning (it's needed since the dice rolls blow up the search space for standard perfect-information strategies): http://www.research.ibm.com/massive/tdl.html. in this case the regret-function is unknown and is stochastically approximated ("learned") by repeated play.
it's notable that unlike chess AI which is considered effective but unnatural, this backgammon AI is considered to play mostly "like a human" and its play has actually inspired new strategies for human backgammon players.
regret-based methods are typically heuristic, and i'd call them much less "autistic" than, say, infinitely-rational nash agents or game tree pruners.
i guess this is the new roland piquepaille: superficial and uninformed blurb-commentary on technical news. wonderful.
His newer stuff is more rock/industrial though.
Nah, that's only if you torrent it; if you buy the album it's still new wave/synthpop.
what does that have to do with anything? kermit 95 is what it is today, not what it was in 1995.
admittedly it's a bad pun, but would it really be surprising that the taiwanese media have a better grasp of english than slashdot editors?
there's this one http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/ghost-in-the-root-shell
it's possible that columbia just doesn't want to make a mistake or get tangled up in red tape over a nonprofitable move; crypto still technically needs to be submitted to the government for approval; it's just a rubberstamp for open source projects.
or it could be standard market segmentation tricks. allow a practically-identical version for the technically-proficient hoi polloi with less liability, while using FUD to sell the Official Version to conservative firms and large companies to whom the cost is negligible. even though there's no support now, a lot of companies (ok, probably more like a few companies) will still have Kermit 95 as a requisite and, hey, it's almost free money, since columbia has a central office maintaining downloads anyway.
their food is expensive, even by NYC standards, and often not very fresh; i think that the logistics for books and electronics just don't translate well. i wouldn't buy, say, vegetable oil at amazon, much less meat or vegetables.
as far as non-food items, i mostly agree.
"I've been a loyal customer for years and was excited to get a job there [at a call center]"
Wow. You're either droolingly stupid or amazingly naive (or this is a really weird troll). I hope it's just naivety, and that you learned something very important. hint: it's not just amazon; by this standard, all human collectivities (not just private companies) are guilty.