No, those are business majors you're thinking of. Environmental science requires a fairly deep personal commitment to pursue, precisely because it isn't lucrative. Climate monitoring just doesn't cost that much.
I'm strongly of the opinion that the question of interference was mostly just an excuse to get people to put their gadgets away and pay attention. Takeoff and landing have the potential to be pretty dangerous, despite their routine nature, and it's not in your best interest to be distracted instead of alert. It seemed like a little bit of a childish lie to make, but, honestly, understandable given the human tendency to get used to safety.
That's just your computer's way of being social! People assume far too readily that social computing is about augmenting typical human interactions with long-distance, instantaneous communications—but it's not. It's about computers finding an excuse to talk to each other. when they deliver messages to each other about how their user made yet another typo, and oh my god, is he still working on that homework project? It's due in ten minutes!
I would tend to argue against building a microwave into a refrigerator because of difficult-to-anticipate interactions between the EM and the packaging. More likely we'll see this in the form factor of a typical microwave oven, or even as an alternative setting thereon. The article notes that they implemented a system whereby the radiation is evenly distributed through the chamber, too, which I'm sure would be a welcome addition to present home microwaves.
A professor once described to me an elevator system at his former place of employment that used machine learning to try and anticipate where the elevator should be when not in use. At the start of the day, for example, the elevators should rest on the ground floor, so that they can collect people going up; similarly, toward the end of the day, they should rest at the top, since the overwhelming majority of people would be going down.
In a real-world setting you may have other phenomena that actually need to be learned, such as different groups taking lunches at set times of day, large meetings that cause several floors to congregate on one, et cetera. This problem can be considered from several different angles within ML; either as a regression problem or classification, for example.
Speed also needs to be optimized not just based upon the desire to reach the destination quickly, but also considering the rate at which the mechanisms will wear out, the energy consumption caused by more rapid movement, and to encourage people to use the stairs.
Given the potential complexity of how many parameters and models can potentially be considered... yeah, you want someone with a serious background in applied optimization, statistics, or artificial intelligence.
It's called a display hack. They're at least as old as the oscilloscope, and have always been a mainstay of the demoscene. The book provides little actual relevant history about the context of this snippet in that regard, only noting that the snippet itself derives from the C64 User's Manual.
Somewhat dismayingly, the bulk of the text ponders on criticism that presumes an intentional, carefully-planned artist:
10 PRINT picks up on aspects of "Mouse in the Maze." Its output is a
regular arrangement of "walls" in a grid—akin to the display of that earlier
program and similar to the arrangement of the stereotypical laboratory
maze. "Mouse in the Maze" does not present the compelling creation of an
inspired Daedalus, but a behaviorist experiment. This maze is a challenge
to intelligence—not, however, a romantic, riddling intelligence, but a classically conditioned, animal kind. It also brings in the idea of the scientist, who may be indifferent to the struggles of the creatures lost in the maze.
This manner of thinking, now put on display nakedly in the context of something completely mathematical and involving no relevant human imagination, can plainly be seen to be philosophically inconsistent. The author has said that a very simple natural phenomenon is influenced by a complex work of art (specifically a TX-0 game from twenty or so years earlier), which indicates a profound metaphysical error.
Certainly it is worthwhile to talk about chaotic functions (like the R pentamino in Conway's Game of Life, in addition to the display hacks already mentioned) but attempting to critique them as if they were part of the artistic canon is intellectually dishonest.
: behaves differently from a true linebreak. An IF statement will skip over additional statements separated by colons if it fails:
10 INPUT "PLEASE INPUT Y OR N: ", A$
20 IF A$ "Y" AND A$ "N" THEN PRINT "INCORRECT": GOTO 10
The "GOTO 10" will only be executed if the condition is met. This is what early BASIC programmers had instead of if statements that supported blocks.
Then oh my god you guys, Israel will have so much egg on its face. They won't be able to be seen in public any more. It'd be, like, a big deal. How could the IAEA betray them like that without provocation? They were friends!
Yeah, okay, that's a vocalic R, you're right.:) I looked up lj, and it's officially this thing, which is similar to the "li" in "battalion," if perhaps a bit softer.
At least there is one universal constant: we can blame Serbian (and maybe a few related languages.) The trick is that they throw unstressed vowels in to pad things out, but it's hard to predict where. Ctvrtlik = "stuh-vert-lick", and I think Trkulja = "truh-kool-yah", but it's hard to be sure. Could be "tur-kool-yah".
It depends on how the second dichotomy maps to the first one. Sometimes they cascade into a true monochotomy. (Also, it would be 'tetrachotomy', due to Greek.)
No, you fool! If you do that you'll unleash the Spirit of Yellow Dots, and they'll haunt you for the rest of time! You'll have little discoloured spots on your vision for the rest of your life, and your children's lives, and so on for all eternity. Only an innocent, blind to the ways of the yellow dot, can safely destroy such a printer.
...I would make arguments about how it's in the second sentence of a paper submitted to a relatively prestigious journal that should have editors to check for this kind of thing, but... a quick fact-check reveals that the criticism was wrong in the first place. Google Scholar returns 27,800 papers for '"white noise" physiology' and only 11 for '"grey noise" physiology'. The term is almost unused.
As surprising as this may seem, stories like that are statistically quite rare, even though there's three or four cases per year. It usually indicates that the company involved is dying or desperate. While pharmaceutical companies as a whole (not the pharmacologists themselves they employ, whom I was actually discussing) do put away a lot of profit into investments, most of the money still goes into research.
Companies still have a major incentive to cure diseases, too—adversarially. Curing a disease that your competitor currently only manages means cutting off that competitor's revenue stream and massive PR benefits. The same incentive motivates the development of better and safer drugs for symptom management. Market pressures work to the patient's benefit as long as companies are properly regulated and required to be truthful about their products.
Medical professionals do not place their job security above the well-being of their patients; those who do get destroyed for malpractice. I hear this claim getting repeated about pharmacologists a lot here on Slashdot—that they don't want to cure diseases because palliative care is a better cash cow—and it just reflects immensely on how ignorant people become when they reduce everything to money.
Doctors are primarily concerned with helping people. With few, anomalous exceptions, they want to eliminate disease and make the world a better place. There are plenty of ways to get a secure job that don't involve making a lifelong commitment to interacting with sick people (and for surgeons, the insides of sick people) on a regular if not daily basis. They also don't cost several extra years, nor the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in tuition. You've clearly gotten them confused with IT managers.
Furthermore, the few doctors who don't consider patient welfare to be their major drive are preoccupied with personal glory, which they already obtain through saving lives. Nothing could be better for them than saving lives even after they're dead. Curing a disease and inventing something that improves the quality or process of medical care both accomplish this.
...which, when you think about it, doesn't mean there isn't a conscious force at work trying to brute-force a recipe for life, it just means we don't know either way. Personally, I like the image of a deity who is analogous to a frustrated graduate student trying to grow a crystal for X-ray diffraction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not zero. A radio can be damaged. A rigid metal object can get lodged in something important. A battery can still explode. Never say zero.
No, those are business majors you're thinking of. Environmental science requires a fairly deep personal commitment to pursue, precisely because it isn't lucrative. Climate monitoring just doesn't cost that much.
If they wanted money, they would be medical researchers. Environmental science doesn't pay well and doesn't generally involve very large grants.
I think failing to make an exception for less interactive devices like the Kindle is simply because they're not that good at splitting hairs.
I'm strongly of the opinion that the question of interference was mostly just an excuse to get people to put their gadgets away and pay attention. Takeoff and landing have the potential to be pretty dangerous, despite their routine nature, and it's not in your best interest to be distracted instead of alert. It seemed like a little bit of a childish lie to make, but, honestly, understandable given the human tendency to get used to safety.
That's just your computer's way of being social! People assume far too readily that social computing is about augmenting typical human interactions with long-distance, instantaneous communications—but it's not. It's about computers finding an excuse to talk to each other. when they deliver messages to each other about how their user made yet another typo, and oh my god, is he still working on that homework project? It's due in ten minutes!
That's a personality disorder.
I would tend to argue against building a microwave into a refrigerator because of difficult-to-anticipate interactions between the EM and the packaging. More likely we'll see this in the form factor of a typical microwave oven, or even as an alternative setting thereon. The article notes that they implemented a system whereby the radiation is evenly distributed through the chamber, too, which I'm sure would be a welcome addition to present home microwaves.
My friend, ham is not only a disease, but two diseases—a serious neurological condition caused by a tropical virus, and this other thing that Google tells me is 100% real. It is perhaps notable that neither can currently be cured.
I have no problem with stoner musings. The problem is that these are not being widely regarded as stoner musings.
A professor once described to me an elevator system at his former place of employment that used machine learning to try and anticipate where the elevator should be when not in use. At the start of the day, for example, the elevators should rest on the ground floor, so that they can collect people going up; similarly, toward the end of the day, they should rest at the top, since the overwhelming majority of people would be going down.
In a real-world setting you may have other phenomena that actually need to be learned, such as different groups taking lunches at set times of day, large meetings that cause several floors to congregate on one, et cetera. This problem can be considered from several different angles within ML; either as a regression problem or classification, for example.
Speed also needs to be optimized not just based upon the desire to reach the destination quickly, but also considering the rate at which the mechanisms will wear out, the energy consumption caused by more rapid movement, and to encourage people to use the stairs.
Given the potential complexity of how many parameters and models can potentially be considered... yeah, you want someone with a serious background in applied optimization, statistics, or artificial intelligence.
It's called a display hack. They're at least as old as the oscilloscope, and have always been a mainstay of the demoscene. The book provides little actual relevant history about the context of this snippet in that regard, only noting that the snippet itself derives from the C64 User's Manual.
Somewhat dismayingly, the bulk of the text ponders on criticism that presumes an intentional, carefully-planned artist:
10 PRINT picks up on aspects of "Mouse in the Maze." Its output is a regular arrangement of "walls" in a grid—akin to the display of that earlier program and similar to the arrangement of the stereotypical laboratory maze. "Mouse in the Maze" does not present the compelling creation of an inspired Daedalus, but a behaviorist experiment. This maze is a challenge to intelligence—not, however, a romantic, riddling intelligence, but a classically conditioned, animal kind. It also brings in the idea of the scientist, who may be indifferent to the struggles of the creatures lost in the maze.
This manner of thinking, now put on display nakedly in the context of something completely mathematical and involving no relevant human imagination, can plainly be seen to be philosophically inconsistent. The author has said that a very simple natural phenomenon is influenced by a complex work of art (specifically a TX-0 game from twenty or so years earlier), which indicates a profound metaphysical error.
Certainly it is worthwhile to talk about chaotic functions (like the R pentamino in Conway's Game of Life, in addition to the display hacks already mentioned) but attempting to critique them as if they were part of the artistic canon is intellectually dishonest.
: behaves differently from a true linebreak. An IF statement will skip over additional statements separated by colons if it fails:
10 INPUT "PLEASE INPUT Y OR N: ", A$
20 IF A$ "Y" AND A$ "N" THEN PRINT "INCORRECT": GOTO 10
The "GOTO 10" will only be executed if the condition is met. This is what early BASIC programmers had instead of if statements that supported blocks.
I'm sorry, the submitter can't hear you over how AMAZING this code snippet is. Buy a t-shirt!
it's just not very amazing at all if you describe it as printing \ and / randomly.
You are really going to break the author's heart if you keep that up.
It's hard to look at this story and not feel that it's a base case in an inductive proof that refutes the existence of art.
That is the single worst joke about Astrochickens I have ever seen. You phone up Freeman Dyson and apologise this instant!
Then oh my god you guys, Israel will have so much egg on its face. They won't be able to be seen in public any more. It'd be, like, a big deal. How could the IAEA betray them like that without provocation? They were friends!
But actually, they're of the opinion that Iranian nuclear scientists have been getting attacked lately, and they want that to stop. The Israel-criticizing was lower on the priority list. I have no idea how the summary missed this.
Yeah, okay, that's a vocalic R, you're right. :) I looked up lj, and it's officially this thing, which is similar to the "li" in "battalion," if perhaps a bit softer.
At least there is one universal constant: we can blame Serbian (and maybe a few related languages.) The trick is that they throw unstressed vowels in to pad things out, but it's hard to predict where. Ctvrtlik = "stuh-vert-lick", and I think Trkulja = "truh-kool-yah", but it's hard to be sure. Could be "tur-kool-yah".
It depends on how the second dichotomy maps to the first one. Sometimes they cascade into a true monochotomy. (Also, it would be 'tetrachotomy', due to Greek.)
No, you fool! If you do that you'll unleash the Spirit of Yellow Dots, and they'll haunt you for the rest of time! You'll have little discoloured spots on your vision for the rest of your life, and your children's lives, and so on for all eternity. Only an innocent, blind to the ways of the yellow dot, can safely destroy such a printer.
...I would make arguments about how it's in the second sentence of a paper submitted to a relatively prestigious journal that should have editors to check for this kind of thing, but... a quick fact-check reveals that the criticism was wrong in the first place. Google Scholar returns 27,800 papers for '"white noise" physiology' and only 11 for '"grey noise" physiology'. The term is almost unused.
As surprising as this may seem, stories like that are statistically quite rare, even though there's three or four cases per year. It usually indicates that the company involved is dying or desperate. While pharmaceutical companies as a whole (not the pharmacologists themselves they employ, whom I was actually discussing) do put away a lot of profit into investments, most of the money still goes into research.
Companies still have a major incentive to cure diseases, too—adversarially. Curing a disease that your competitor currently only manages means cutting off that competitor's revenue stream and massive PR benefits. The same incentive motivates the development of better and safer drugs for symptom management. Market pressures work to the patient's benefit as long as companies are properly regulated and required to be truthful about their products.
Medical professionals do not place their job security above the well-being of their patients; those who do get destroyed for malpractice. I hear this claim getting repeated about pharmacologists a lot here on Slashdot—that they don't want to cure diseases because palliative care is a better cash cow—and it just reflects immensely on how ignorant people become when they reduce everything to money.
Doctors are primarily concerned with helping people. With few, anomalous exceptions, they want to eliminate disease and make the world a better place. There are plenty of ways to get a secure job that don't involve making a lifelong commitment to interacting with sick people (and for surgeons, the insides of sick people) on a regular if not daily basis. They also don't cost several extra years, nor the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in tuition. You've clearly gotten them confused with IT managers.
Furthermore, the few doctors who don't consider patient welfare to be their major drive are preoccupied with personal glory, which they already obtain through saving lives. Nothing could be better for them than saving lives even after they're dead. Curing a disease and inventing something that improves the quality or process of medical care both accomplish this.
...which, when you think about it, doesn't mean there isn't a conscious force at work trying to brute-force a recipe for life, it just means we don't know either way. Personally, I like the image of a deity who is analogous to a frustrated graduate student trying to grow a crystal for X-ray diffraction.