A group of the moderately skilled can, through consensus and planning, quite efficiently evaluate an individual of higher skill. For example, psychometricians generally speaking aren't geniuses but their IQ tests are pretty good at detecting them.
Yeah, maybe citrus juice is helpful, although that link is far from convincing. Probably any sort of sugar water would do just as much good (which Ocean Spray products mostly are).
That is, as long as it's not contaminated by some young child's bacteria.
I think it's kind of silly to regulate at this level, but I am also not as afraid of contamination as some.
Yeah, and what's wrong with telling people that "hey this is probably going to be about as rewarding as slavery"? No one is saying anything about being forced. Is there something wrong with people with mutual interests discussing payoff structures amongst themselves?
Sheesh. I figured I was just trolled above, but maybe not...
Yes, very good and I agree completely. This article is suggesting exactly that; that people should better consider the terms of that (or similar) contests, and that there could be better ways, in the long-run, to spend one's time. I.e., make rational decisions about who is benefiting, so that you can get reimbursed closer to your true value as opposed to following a herd and going for vague kudos.
That's nice, but the flip side of that is what is being discussed here: "why should someone work under such a brittle proposition?" Netflix is not obliged to reward "losers" nor is anyone suggesting they should be, so stick your red herring up your arse.
I once downloaded a ton of drivers to prepare to install my HP printer on ubuntu. I plugged the device in and braced myself for an hour+ of tedium and headache. Within half a minute, ubuntu autodetected the printer and printed a flawless test page.
HP is clearly doing something wrong with software. You can play market-will-bear tricks with ink and supplies, without screwing the driver/interface.
Would it be possible for the humanitarian organizations (maybe at least the more `fringe' ones who are less beholden) to approximate this redaction in lieu of the US gov.? This would be a worthwhile sort of effort, maybe it can even be partially automated.
The next part, involving his idea of trucks as having infinite capacity is the more questionable part and what really kills his analogy. Strictly speaking, his error was in transport logistics and not hydraulics/network flows.;-) The analogy is still just as dead; people just criticize the wrong part.
It's not a waste, since the fluoride itself would otherwise be a waste product. Water fluoridation is a way of dumping chemical byproducts in a manner and proportion which is a net benefit to the recipients as well as the disposers. A true win-win scenario, at least in the average case.
i think it's called objectivism. not particularly new; all you need to do is make up some convenient definition of rationality which implies your conclusion, accuse the mark of violating it, and then keep saying "A is A" until they cave and/or write you off as a loon.
I'm being thick here I guess, but why do we know the required simulation of Turing machines to be in NP=P (given assumption), and not EXPTIME or at least PSPACE?
By: 1) focusing on the approaches that actually work; 2) stripping the window-dressing of these approaches; 3) perhaps overloading the term "generically".
Interesting. If this is true as stated, and one knew/modeled OCR performance, you could use this information in some cases to pick out the plum and boost the crack...
Let's see... 10 years ago I had more or less the same compute environment just crappier. Maybe you're right, but "half-generation" was as arbitrary as "2 or 3 years". I would have said "third-of-a-generation" if I knew it'd come to this.;-)
These parameters should be modeled and optimized by economists. Even if they get it wrong, there will be a reason for being wrong which could then be tweaked. I strongly suspect that the optimal parameters will end up be closer to 2 years.
I mean that more obvious inventions (and inventions which depend on time-sensitive context) should get shorter coverage. In so far as many software patents are relatively obvious, then software should get less coverage. Insofar as software is also more time-sensitive then yes the examination process should be faster and less careful. Increased false positives, but reduced `damage' per false positive, as befits the `faster' and less careful software market. If you have a better way to speed up the patent process I'd be interested to hear it.
As it is, we spend years calculating a binary decision which is obsolete by the time it's calculated and encumbers the future with ridiculous 17-year barriers. Yes, we need to be less careful with the calculation. The "redistribution" of risks from the patent system is at odds with reality and increasing jarring.
The software issue (like the genes issue) is, logically speaking, a red herring, although it is correlated with the real issues...
We don't have a problem violating all the other treaties.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any need for that crap. Fuck that bullshit, and fuck you.
(2^10 is eleven doublings)
No it isn't.
A group of the moderately skilled can, through consensus and planning, quite efficiently evaluate an individual of higher skill. For example, psychometricians generally speaking aren't geniuses but their IQ tests are pretty good at detecting them.
Yeah, maybe citrus juice is helpful, although that link is far from convincing. Probably any sort of sugar water would do just as much good (which Ocean Spray products mostly are).
That is, as long as it's not contaminated by some young child's bacteria.
I think it's kind of silly to regulate at this level, but I am also not as afraid of contamination as some.
The point still applies to the article.
Nah, he could still be Korean and it'd work.
Yeah, and what's wrong with telling people that "hey this is probably going to be about as rewarding as slavery"? No one is saying anything about being forced. Is there something wrong with people with mutual interests discussing payoff structures amongst themselves?
Sheesh. I figured I was just trolled above, but maybe not...
Yes, very good and I agree completely. This article is suggesting exactly that; that people should better consider the terms of that (or similar) contests, and that there could be better ways, in the long-run, to spend one's time. I.e., make rational decisions about who is benefiting, so that you can get reimbursed closer to your true value as opposed to following a herd and going for vague kudos.
That's nice, but the flip side of that is what is being discussed here: "why should someone work under such a brittle proposition?" Netflix is not obliged to reward "losers" nor is anyone suggesting they should be, so stick your red herring up your arse.
nothing's ever a complete loss then. i'm sure even african slaves got good physical exercise in the cotton fields.
I once downloaded a ton of drivers to prepare to install my HP printer on ubuntu. I plugged the device in and braced myself for an hour+ of tedium and headache. Within half a minute, ubuntu autodetected the printer and printed a flawless test page.
HP is clearly doing something wrong with software. You can play market-will-bear tricks with ink and supplies, without screwing the driver/interface.
Would it be possible for the humanitarian organizations (maybe at least the more `fringe' ones who are less beholden) to approximate this redaction in lieu of the US gov.? This would be a worthwhile sort of effort, maybe it can even be partially automated.
Yeah, that part was actually fine.
The next part, involving his idea of trucks as having infinite capacity is the more questionable part and what really kills his analogy. Strictly speaking, his error was in transport logistics and not hydraulics/network flows. ;-) The analogy is still just as dead; people just criticize the wrong part.
It's not a waste, since the fluoride itself would otherwise be a waste product. Water fluoridation is a way of dumping chemical byproducts in a manner and proportion which is a net benefit to the recipients as well as the disposers. A true win-win scenario, at least in the average case.
i think it's called objectivism. not particularly new; all you need to do is make up some convenient definition of rationality which implies your conclusion, accuse the mark of violating it, and then keep saying "A is A" until they cave and/or write you off as a loon.
Those comments are congratulating Greg Baker for his anemic write-up getting on slashdot.
Thanks for the nice explanation. Cook's theorem. Sheesh, I need to review my complexity, if I ever knew it in the first place. :-/
I'm being thick here I guess, but why do we know the required simulation of Turing machines to be in NP=P (given assumption), and not EXPTIME or at least PSPACE?
By: 1) focusing on the approaches that actually work; 2) stripping the window-dressing of these approaches; 3) perhaps overloading the term "generically".
A certain point of view?!
College is free in America if you bother to find the grants ... having paid for college myself...
Didn't bother finding the grants?
meh. never mind. it'd only take twice as long at most, to just do your best on both. duh.
i guess if there were a limited number of attempts you might use this to decide which ones to attempt vs. reload.
Interesting. If this is true as stated, and one knew/modeled OCR performance, you could use this information in some cases to pick out the plum and boost the crack...
Let's see... 10 years ago I had more or less the same compute environment just crappier. Maybe you're right, but "half-generation" was as arbitrary as "2 or 3 years". I would have said "third-of-a-generation" if I knew it'd come to this. ;-)
These parameters should be modeled and optimized by economists. Even if they get it wrong, there will be a reason for being wrong which could then be tweaked. I strongly suspect that the optimal parameters will end up be closer to 2 years.
I mean that more obvious inventions (and inventions which depend on time-sensitive context) should get shorter coverage. In so far as many software patents are relatively obvious, then software should get less coverage. Insofar as software is also more time-sensitive then yes the examination process should be faster and less careful. Increased false positives, but reduced `damage' per false positive, as befits the `faster' and less careful software market. If you have a better way to speed up the patent process I'd be interested to hear it.
As it is, we spend years calculating a binary decision which is obsolete by the time it's calculated and encumbers the future with ridiculous 17-year barriers. Yes, we need to be less careful with the calculation. The "redistribution" of risks from the patent system is at odds with reality and increasing jarring.
The software issue (like the genes issue) is, logically speaking, a red herring, although it is correlated with the real issues...
We don't have a problem violating all the other treaties.
I hate "first to file". It's a perversion.