Personally, I hardly ever read manuals when I get new _ware.
I take it you are not programming much, then. It would be hard to start using a new programming language or a new library without having read some sort of documentation first. I also guess you don't use TeX, or sendmail, or any other program with a significant learning curve... Let me guess, you are a Windows user, right?
The future lies in parallel processing and DNA, mark my words.
Yeah, right! The future is DNA computing? It's a hack that happens work for some obscure computationally intensive problems that can easily be paralellized. You do not want a DNA computer to replace your desktop, trust me on this. It would take hours just to set up a simple computation. It could make for an interesting co-processor, though, but for mainstream use the gains are probably not worth it. Parellell computing? Maybe, but there are lot's of interesting problems that are not easily paralellized. Anyway, you forgot to mention quantum computing. That is definitely interesting, if it will ever work (and chances are it will not). But for the close future, I'll be willing to bet a lot that Moore's law will probably still be valid for a few more years.
Points of infinite density? Is that what black holes are supposed to be?
No, but places of very high density. If they had infinite density they would have no extension. AFAIK (IANAP (I am not an astro physicist)) black holes do have a size, and the mass contained in them is finite.
A Universe simply came into being? That's pretty far fetched. You can't get something from nothing.
Yeah, a debate of creationism here on Slashdot! If this were usenet, I think someone should mention Hitler soon...
What's unusual about the laws in this universe is that there seem to be relatively few of them, and they're relatively simple -- at least compared to what they might be. There's no reason, though, why they *must* be so simple, or must be equally simple everywhere; the fact that we expect them to be is merely more evidence of the simplicity.
Oh, they would have to be simple. Otherwise, we couldn't find them. If there were laws of nature that werw extremely convoluted (like programming inhttp://www.mines.edu/students/b/bolmstea Malbolge then we would never discover them, simply because it would be impossible to see the statistical trend. So the fact that the laws of nature are simple simply reflect the fact that those are the ones we can actually find!
We at Microsoft have always believed there should be a marketplace for innovation and competition in the IT-field. Linux is a threat to this, because it is free. There is no innovation of value going on under Linux. After all, Linux is an attempt to rebuild an operating system that reached the peak of it's popularity in the 70's. And because nobody pays for Linux, there will be no incentive to innovate. We at Microsoft try to make a better operating system and to take care of all your computing needs.
Linux is a threat to free markets and free competition because it's free. Why would anybody pay for Microsoft products when they can get Linux for free? After all, getting something for free sounds good when you consider the short-term benefits. But over time, this will stiffle competition. Everyone will be using Linux, and progress will stop. After all, when nobody pays, where will the money for innovation come from? If you worry about the long-term IT strategy for your company, you should go with Microsoft. Microsoft stands for innovation and competition in a free marketplace.
Oh, and remember, this was an attempt at sarcasm, so before you flame me, remember that this was an attempt at visualizing future Microsoft marketing strategies, not my personal opinion.
They can go through their patent file and go for anything in Linux that looks remotely like some patent they have. Given the state of the US Patent system, I am sure there should be a few hits...
Of course it is object oriented. You send two messages in sequence to the "cout" object. so you've made use of an OO concept, namely message-passing. So there...
I think perhaps that the point was that when the geographic targetting was a cost/liability, they claimed not to know how, but now that they stand to
make a buck, a solution magically presents itself.
I tend to disagree. They claim the solution is not good enough for liability charges, but good enough for targeted adverticing and netcasting of the olympics. I'd say that's pretty reasonable. Getting something right 90% of the time makes most adverticers happy, but surely doesn't make the courts happy. That's it!
You would have to pay some extra money for your Internet connection, even though you never downloaded any copyrighted content. And who should decide how much extra an ISP should charge? The ISP? Probably not, as there would have to be the same amount of money coming from every ISP. Then who? I can't see how this could possibly work without killing the idea of a free market.
Who would the money get to if very few people downloaded copyrighted content a certain week. Should the ISP get the cake, or should it still be equally splitted among the right-holders? What should happen if no one downloaded copyrighted content.
What is a reasonable price per tag? Should that be fixed, or set by the copyright-owner? It seems unreasonable that downloading the latest Britney-album and the entire Encyclopedia Britannica should have the same price (although there is approximately the same amount of bytes). It also seems unreasonable that the content-publisher should be allowed to set any price he wishes on each tag. We can only conclude that this needs to be regulated as well, which means no more free markets.
Mp3.com have shown us, that when artist are getting some form of compensation per download, trickery will occur. Just imagine: In order to download <this file> you will have to download <these files> first! These kind of schemes are common even today. If there were any point in making a copyright-revenue system built into the current Internet infrastructure it would be in order to remove hassles such as these. When a system doesn't even remove that, it should IMHO be scrapped.
'd like my stereo to learn that I like
to turn the volume up for quiet parts of classical music (or the intro of "Stairway to Heaven"), but I don't want the same volume level in the
LOUD parts of the music.
How about buying a compressor?
Neural nets is a very limited technology that currently doesn't solve any problems well (it solves some very few (but useful) problems better than traditional programming techniques, but still badly).
I can't understand why on earth you absolutely want to put neural nets into your home. Why don't you start with something that you would like to achieve, and then choose the appropriate technology instead?
As an example: I absolutely don't want to train my light-switch to turn the light on and off. I am quite happy by just pressing it. And what parameters are you going to use as inputs to the neural nets so they can make decisions? It sounds to me that as soon as you can figure that out, you are already on your way to a better solution that is programmable in the traditional way.
In short: I don't want no stinkin' neural nets in my home
Hey you! Don't fuck with us jugglers! Or maybe you want me to try to juggle your balls for a while? We can do that, you know! Now, would you like it in a cascade or shower pattern?
a while back a space probe of some sort was skipped off the earths atmosphere to give it a speed boost out into space
it slowed down the earths rotation, albeit just barely, and it was a fairly small vehicle
Any object we send away from the earth (that is, not satelites, as they are still in orbit) will disrupt the earth's position in space. Of course, the earth is a gazillion times heavier than those object, so any displacement is so small that we can calculate it, but probably not measure it.
Still, it would be cool if we could slow down the earth rotation a bit more. If the diurnal cycle were 28 hours, I'd probably have a much easier time getting up in the morning (and sleep in the evening).
Space is big. As long as we don't put stuff where we can find it later (in orbit around the earth), there is absolutely no reason at all why we can't pollute as much as we want. Fuck space!
Re:Definitive ref on "cold fusion" (Re:Too bad...)
on
The Quest For Fusion
·
· Score: 1
The story didn't mention cold fusion at all. It was about warm fusion. That is certainly doable (nature have been doing it since the start of time). Please don't confuse the issues.
After seeing the stats, I can't stop wondering what the fuzz is all about. 500 000 cpu hours, is that much? That means 1369 users for one year doing nothing else. Assuming they only use the computer for 8 hours a day, means 2053 users donating their spare cycles for one year. Considering the price of the Arecibo radio telescope, they should probably just buy some computers to do the processing themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you are not programming much, then. It would be hard to start using a new programming language or a new library without having read some sort of documentation first. I also guess you don't use TeX, or sendmail, or any other program with a significant learning curve... Let me guess, you are a Windows user, right?
Oh, but Murphy's law has been experimentally tested by many people many times. It is most definitely a law of physics :-)
Yeah, right! The future is DNA computing? It's a hack that happens work for some obscure computationally intensive problems that can easily be paralellized. You do not want a DNA computer to replace your desktop, trust me on this. It would take hours just to set up a simple computation. It could make for an interesting co-processor, though, but for mainstream use the gains are probably not worth it. Parellell computing? Maybe, but there are lot's of interesting problems that are not easily paralellized. Anyway, you forgot to mention quantum computing. That is definitely interesting, if it will ever work (and chances are it will not). But for the close future, I'll be willing to bet a lot that Moore's law will probably still be valid for a few more years.
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ca.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.de.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.fr.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.jp.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.nl.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.no.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ln.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
Another option would be to use conqueror who has an excellent cookie manager.
No, but places of very high density. If they had infinite density they would have no extension. AFAIK (IANAP (I am not an astro physicist)) black holes do have a size, and the mass contained in them is finite.
A Universe simply came into being? That's pretty far fetched. You can't get something from nothing. Yeah, a debate of creationism here on Slashdot! If this were usenet, I think someone should mention Hitler soon...
Oh, they would have to be simple. Otherwise, we couldn't find them. If there were laws of nature that werw extremely convoluted (like programming inhttp://www.mines.edu/students/b/bolmstea Malbolge then we would never discover them, simply because it would be impossible to see the statistical trend. So the fact that the laws of nature are simple simply reflect the fact that those are the ones we can actually find!
I think he just was pretty clueless in chosing his .sig.
We at Microsoft have always believed there should be a marketplace for innovation and competition in the IT-field. Linux is a threat to this, because it is free. There is no innovation of value going on under Linux. After all, Linux is an attempt to rebuild an operating system that reached the peak of it's popularity in the 70's. And because nobody pays for Linux, there will be no incentive to innovate. We at Microsoft try to make a better operating system and to take care of all your computing needs.
Linux is a threat to free markets and free competition because it's free. Why would anybody pay for Microsoft products when they can get Linux for free? After all, getting something for free sounds good when you consider the short-term benefits. But over time, this will stiffle competition. Everyone will be using Linux, and progress will stop. After all, when nobody pays, where will the money for innovation come from? If you worry about the long-term IT strategy for your company, you should go with Microsoft. Microsoft stands for innovation and competition in a free marketplace.
Oh, and remember, this was an attempt at sarcasm, so before you flame me, remember that this was an attempt at visualizing future Microsoft marketing strategies, not my personal opinion.
They can go through their patent file and go for anything in Linux that looks remotely like some patent they have. Given the state of the US Patent system, I am sure there should be a few hits...
Hmm, I would recommend a surround sound amplifier and some speakers. That ought to do it! ;-)
IT's a Witch! Burn her! Burn her!
Why fight with C++ when you can use Common Lisp, Ocaml, SmallTalk, Eiffel, Ruby, or some of the so many other OO languages out there.
:-)
I tend to disagree. They claim the solution is not good enough for liability charges, but good enough for targeted adverticing and netcasting of the olympics. I'd say that's pretty reasonable. Getting something right 90% of the time makes most adverticers happy, but surely doesn't make the courts happy. That's it!
'd like my stereo to learn that I like to turn the volume up for quiet parts of classical music (or the intro of "Stairway to Heaven"), but I don't want the same volume level in the LOUD parts of the music. How about buying a compressor?
Neural nets is a very limited technology that currently doesn't solve any problems well (it solves some very few (but useful) problems better than traditional programming techniques, but still badly).
I can't understand why on earth you absolutely want to put neural nets into your home. Why don't you start with something that you would like to achieve, and then choose the appropriate technology instead?
As an example: I absolutely don't want to train my light-switch to turn the light on and off. I am quite happy by just pressing it. And what parameters are you going to use as inputs to the neural nets so they can make decisions? It sounds to me that as soon as you can figure that out, you are already on your way to a better solution that is programmable in the traditional way.
In short: I don't want no stinkin' neural nets in my home
The Chewbacca defense might be a good option?
Here is a link to the same old story posted by michael yesterday.
Look at www.juggling.org
Any object we send away from the earth (that is, not satelites, as they are still in orbit) will disrupt the earth's position in space. Of course, the earth is a gazillion times heavier than those object, so any displacement is so small that we can calculate it, but probably not measure it.
Still, it would be cool if we could slow down the earth rotation a bit more. If the diurnal cycle were 28 hours, I'd probably have a much easier time getting up in the morning (and sleep in the evening).
Space is big. As long as we don't put stuff where we can find it later (in orbit around the earth), there is absolutely no reason at all why we can't pollute as much as we want. Fuck space!
The story didn't mention cold fusion at all. It was about warm fusion. That is certainly doable (nature have been doing it since the start of time). Please don't confuse the issues.
After seeing the stats, I can't stop wondering what the fuzz is all about. 500 000 cpu hours, is that much? That means 1369 users for one year doing nothing else. Assuming they only use the computer for 8 hours a day, means 2053 users donating their spare cycles for one year. Considering the price of the Arecibo radio telescope, they should probably just buy some computers to do the processing themselves.