You can pay only with debit cards and credit cards. So, too bad if you have any money in a GC; guess you'll be buying something else with it. Like, maybe an iTunes Music Card? Heh.
For instance, Annie brings balance to the force by killing all the Jedi, except 1 Master (Yoda) and 1 apprentice (Obi Wan) for the Light side, and 1 Master (the Emperor) and 1 apprentice (Darth Vadar) for the Dark side. If you buy that--that the two sides of the Force are balanced in some numerical sense--then note further that Yoda barely lost to the Emperor and Obi Wan barely beat Darth Vadar. Further, after Yoda dies, Luke is able to beat Darth Vadar... (but not the Emperor, so maybe I'm full of it;) ).
You can't do hit and run if you can't run, right?:)
The hyperdrive seems more important for getting the hell out of Dodge than getting to Dodge in the first place.
Further, the blog presumes/suggests that you should watch the movies as Episode I thru VI. IMO, the proper order of watching these films is:
1. IV 2. V 3. VI 4. I 5. II 6. III 7. IV 8. V 9. VI
It has often been said that the true story of Star Wars is the rise, fall, and redemption of Darth Vader. This is certaintly true--from a certain point of view--but you can't even guess at that until at least the end of The Empire Strikes Back, when The Big Secret is revealed, and Darth Vadar becomes more than just a Very Bad Guy.
Instead, by watching the movies in the above order, 1-3 works on the obvious level: the rise of Luke Skywalker, farm boy, to Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight and hero of the New Republic, and true carrier of Skywalker honor. Then, watching 4-6 (i.e. episodes I-III), you see the almost-rise of A. Skywalker, who dramatically fails to live up to everyone's hopes, and instead becomes Darth Vadar, Dark Lord of the Sith. Then, you can watch 7-9 (i.e. episodes IV - VI) again, with the further understanding of just who this Darth Vadar guy is, what he's all about, and just how far he has fallen, for the full the Fall and Redemption story.
Further, the above order preserves all the major surprises and plot twists. The only downside, IMO, is that the plot holes are more obvious, even discounting that you watch 3 of the movies twice (and therefor are more likely to notice them).
The SYSTEM process was the thing using up my CPU. I don't know if the cause was Trend-Micro or not though...
It was. It "hit" U.S. computers late Friday (about 5:30p central) and was fixed a few hours later. Of course, we didn't know what the cause was to begin with, so that didn't keep those of us working a bit late Friday from working much later....
Yep. I changed all my settings to "No" ("Hell No" wasn't an option) back when this was first announced, and when I checked after receiving this notice they were still set as I desired.
This appears to be a simple repeat of their first warning because they claim to be actually implementing some/all of the various options you say yes or no to.
I was already pissed back when I had to go change everything to "no", so I didn't bother getting pissed again for this reminder.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could make everyone read a disclaimer before they read any of your posts that said you're not being insulting and you're willing to explain anything that's confusing?
And, now that you know how cool making people read disclaimers is, if you could make it happen for all the messages you've ever written, without going back and editing them?
Or, in other words, I'd never hard of this "aspect" programming before today, but I think it's kind of cool.
Client action: submit username U, password P, MAC address A. Server action: record and associate U, P, and A. As this is inital login, allow play.
2. play: Client action: cheat Server action: ban U+P+A
3. Second login: client action: submit U+P+A server action: deny access (U+P+A is banned) client action: submit username U, password P, MAC address A2. server action: deny access (reason: no such combination is registered)
All this program has to do is submit *some* MAC address to the server (a function not normally possible). Once you do, you must continue to sumbit this MAC. Authitication is handled server side.
This will screw over people who innocently change the reported MAC address (e.g. change network cards or computers), but cheaters can't get around this by changing MAC addresses.
We also need a new admendment to the Constitution that reads, "No, really, Goddammit, Congress shall make no law that abridges the freedom of speech. Do you get it this time? Just in case you don't, all members of Congress shall repeat the following phrase at the beginning of every session, 'We shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and we have to say this every session because we're blind, deaf, and stupid, and we kept fucking it up.'"
What if I wanted to compare the difference between grayscale converted scenes in movies? Maybe I'm a film student and I want to investigate how colors translate to 'black & white', because someday I want to make a single film that expresses a different message when viewed in color and when viewed in B&W. Is it possible to 'encode' meaning in a color version and a B&W version so the same movie, when viewed under different circumstances, will have vastly different interpretations?
To find out, I want the raw data of some other original works, so I can take samples, apply some conversions, and compare the results. I don't want to give these samples away, I probably don't even want to even keep them after I've got my notes, and a taped copy isn't going to work for me, because my hypothetical film will be digital from start to finish, and an analog step in getting the color conversions right makes everything break.
In this case, I need access to the raw data of other works of art. If these works are on DVD, and I'm restricted to using analog film to compare colors and color conversions, the above mentioned movie is much less likely to be made.
"We look forward to the day when we can present the results of our research to you, our colleagues, through the normal scientific publication process, so that you can judge our work for yourselves."
Paper gets published in a respected scientific journal next to studies on DNA and plant ecology. Gets reprinted in the online edition. What then?
Let me just say that, after sending in my money and name, I have never received so much junk [snail] mail in my life.
Save the whales, the birds, the trees (ha!), and the waters, stop the $BADPEOPLE from doing $BADTHING to $PLACE, fill out the form, turn in the survey, be aware of $BADTHING, write your congressperson about $BADTHING, write $BADPEOPLE about $BADTHING and tell them that $BADTHING isn't a good thing, send more money, here are some stamps can you send us some money, we don't guilt-trip you by sending you stamps can you send us some money, did you know about $BADTHING, send us some money and we'll fight it....ARRGGHHH.
None of the stuff I'm talking about is from the ACLU, and all of it started after I sent in my name and money.
I know, I'm a moron.
I'm happy to just get some bills in the mail, now.
I do get local ACLU news, candiate summaries, and the like, too, and that stuff I don't mind. But this other stuff....
I believe what he is really talking about is a matter of scale. You are correct, an operating system really is just a convienent mechanisim for managing the resources of "your machine," but in this case I believe he wishes to expand the idea of what a person's machine is. (Not that such an expansion is really that innovative.)
A CPU in a box that sits under your desk, manipulating the bits that you tell it to, is able to make certain assumptions that make writing the operating system easier. The challenge of writing an operating system that can operate across platforms--where, perhaps, not all machines are equally trustworthy, or maybe where some processors may disappear completly (how do you handle lost data efficiently?)--is still the same question ("how do you use these resources to get work done?"), but the answer isn't the same.
You are correct in that being distrubted doesn't help manage resources--in fact, it's a pain. The advantage being distributed offers is in having the cycles available to get more/bigger stuff done.
Now, to answer the original question:
An AI would probably find use in such a system. It could conceivably be trained and/or learn to recognize, for instance, unreliable nodes in the system, and perhaps only distribute less important work to that node. Where the AI itself would run would be an interesting problem, and is really an extension of the question "is the distributed OS symmetric?" (Note that things like Seti@Home are/not/ symmetric, as it has a central "OS node" that dolls out work to other nodes, which then respond with answers. This is the same thing as a current day consumer OS that runs the OS on, say, just one CPU, and never runs any part of itself on any other CPU, even if they are idle.)
An AI could be used in any number of other jobs that such an operating system might need to do (e.g. allocating memory, scheduling jobs, etc.), but really an AI--as I usually think of them, anyway--is probably overkill. The simple algorithms currently employed in traditional OS's are probably sufficient...but you never know. That's why it's an interesting question.
Currently, the way it's mostly done is companies get their little slice of the pie, and then fit as much data into that slice as they can, using whatever method (protocol) they see fit. This seems to produce a local optimum where the given frequency, being limited and expensive to expand upon, ends up being optimized and compressed to respectable levels. However, this localized approach is probably suboptimal overall.
A better [perhaps] approach might be to consolidate large sections of the spectrum under a single "data carrier" protocol, with a much more end to end approach (like the Internet). As we've all seen, freeing the users (whether they be hardware builders or cellphone callers) with open connectivty--where you just put your data 'on the air' and let it arrive at your target--generates lots of good things. It should also be more efficient overall.
One of the first catches I see to such use is that realtime use (e.g. cellphones) would require more reliablity--and I mean reliablity on a quality sense, not a basic funcationality sense-- than the Internet generally provides. Perhaps you could split the protocol up into 'reliablity zones', where some of it uses more bandwidth to provide better service. Companies could pay a premium for putting data onto this network. More time-tolerent services might use a more latency prone slice, and pay less.
Hmm, and any inefficiences in having sectioned spectrum might be alleviated if this magical protocol had some kind of dynamic frequency allocation scheme. Need more real-time bandwidth? Expand the RealTime block of frequencies. Need less? Open up some room for more latency tolerent devices (e.g. text messaging). Actually, this problem reminds me of my OS classes I took in college....
Every punishment is violating some constitutional right: if you go to prison then you have not freedom of movement, you don't have voting rights, etc...
Incorrect. You just can't have your life, liberty, or property taken away without due process of law.
Really. I'm not kidding.
This power is limited by the fact that Congress can't make certain laws (e.g. anti-freedom of expression) to be duely processed in the first place.
I'm not a lawyer. I have, however, actually read the Consitution all the way through. It helps. Sometimes.;)
AMD, like Intel, has two general lines of processors, those meant for the higher end, and those meant for the lower end. Athlon is the most recent, and, really, the first, high end type processor from AMD. Further high end processors (e.g. "Thunderbird") will be coming out Soon from AMD to propagate the high end. Duron ("Spitfire") is the latest low end processor--it just happens to be based on the same core as the Athlon and really fast, so it actually compares to the current line of Athlons in preformance.
Speculation is that the next Athlon will once again establish the performance difference between the low end and the high end...and, yes, that would mean that the new Athlon is going to be fast
I mean, other than the part where you imply you're saying something different, and the generalized insults you added to the end.
Are you trying to give better examples of causation and correlation? Or are you trying to say that the previous examples weren't valid? Or is your point that the examples were "rediculously exagerated"?
Because being exaggerated, when you're trying to show how something is different than another thing, isn't necessarily a bad thing. He wasn't trying to prove the truth value of the statements, after all, but rather appeared to be demonstrating the difference in form.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, lest I be accused of "strawmanning," but I don't see how the examples you gave are any more clear than the previous examples, nor more correct, nor any less exaggerated, form wise.
Or, maybe you just wanted to rant about "all [us] guys" who are "over-sensitive non-psych educated geeks who think they know everything"?
Putting such a blatant and obvious over-generalization in a discussion about correlation and causation isn't such a good idea. Besides the fact that most people already know that lots of smart young kids are egotistical, if you were were trying to make a point (and not just an excuse to rant), insulting the audience you apparently think you're talking to doesn't exactly seem like a great use of time.
Too bad they didn't put Galileo into quarantine or clean her up before sending her off, it'd be at least as interesting to see what we could find out about Europa (by crashing Galileo into it) as whatever we learn about whatever moon/planet we do end up crashing it into (if any).
Slashdot Mirror
You can pay only with debit cards and credit cards. So, too bad if you have any money in a GC; guess you'll be buying something else with it. Like, maybe an iTunes Music Card? Heh.
Yar, I was just hitting some high points.
;) ).
For instance, Annie brings balance to the force by killing all the Jedi, except 1 Master (Yoda) and 1 apprentice (Obi Wan) for the Light side, and 1 Master (the Emperor) and 1 apprentice (Darth Vadar) for the Dark side. If you buy that--that the two sides of the Force are balanced in some numerical sense--then note further that Yoda barely lost to the Emperor and Obi Wan barely beat Darth Vadar. Further, after Yoda dies, Luke is able to beat Darth Vadar... (but not the Emperor, so maybe I'm full of it
You can't do hit and run if you can't run, right? :)
The hyperdrive seems more important for getting the hell out of Dodge than getting to Dodge in the first place.
Further, the blog presumes/suggests that you should watch the movies as Episode I thru VI. IMO, the proper order of watching these films is:
1. IV
2. V
3. VI
4. I
5. II
6. III
7. IV
8. V
9. VI
It has often been said that the true story of Star Wars is the rise, fall, and redemption of Darth Vader. This is certaintly true--from a certain point of view--but you can't even guess at that until at least the end of The Empire Strikes Back, when The Big Secret is revealed, and Darth Vadar becomes more than just a Very Bad Guy.
Instead, by watching the movies in the above order, 1-3 works on the obvious level: the rise of Luke Skywalker, farm boy, to Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight and hero of the New Republic, and true carrier of Skywalker honor. Then, watching 4-6 (i.e. episodes I-III), you see the almost-rise of A. Skywalker, who dramatically fails to live up to everyone's hopes, and instead becomes Darth Vadar, Dark Lord of the Sith. Then, you can watch 7-9 (i.e. episodes IV - VI) again, with the further understanding of just who this Darth Vadar guy is, what he's all about, and just how far he has fallen, for the full the Fall and Redemption story.
Further, the above order preserves all the major surprises and plot twists. The only downside, IMO, is that the plot holes are more obvious, even discounting that you watch 3 of the movies twice (and therefor are more likely to notice them).
The SYSTEM process was the thing using up my CPU. I don't know if the cause was Trend-Micro or not though... It was. It "hit" U.S. computers late Friday (about 5:30p central) and was fixed a few hours later. Of course, we didn't know what the cause was to begin with, so that didn't keep those of us working a bit late Friday from working much later....
Yep. I changed all my settings to "No" ("Hell No" wasn't an option) back when this was first announced, and when I checked after receiving this notice they were still set as I desired.
This appears to be a simple repeat of their first warning because they claim to be actually implementing some/all of the various options you say yes or no to.
I was already pissed back when I had to go change everything to "no", so I didn't bother getting pissed again for this reminder.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could make everyone read a disclaimer before they read any of your posts that said you're not being insulting and you're willing to explain anything that's confusing?
And, now that you know how cool making people read disclaimers is, if you could make it happen for all the messages you've ever written, without going back and editing them?
Or, in other words, I'd never hard of this "aspect" programming before today, but I think it's kind of cool.
Hi.
1. Initial login
Client action: submit username U, password P, MAC address A.
Server action: record and associate U, P, and A. As this is inital login, allow play.
2. play:
Client action: cheat
Server action: ban U+P+A
3. Second login:
client action: submit U+P+A
server action: deny access (U+P+A is banned)
client action: submit username U, password P, MAC address A2.
server action: deny access (reason: no such combination is registered)
All this program has to do is submit *some* MAC address to the server (a function not normally possible). Once you do, you must continue to sumbit this MAC. Authitication is handled server side.
This will screw over people who innocently change the reported MAC address (e.g. change network cards or computers), but cheaters can't get around this by changing MAC addresses.
For an example:
What if I wanted to compare the difference between grayscale converted scenes in movies? Maybe I'm a film student and I want to investigate how colors translate to 'black & white', because someday I want to make a single film that expresses a different message when viewed in color and when viewed in B&W. Is it possible to 'encode' meaning in a color version and a B&W version so the same movie, when viewed under different circumstances, will have vastly different interpretations?
To find out, I want the raw data of some other original works, so I can take samples, apply some conversions, and compare the results. I don't want to give these samples away, I probably don't even want to even keep them after I've got my notes, and a taped copy isn't going to work for me, because my hypothetical film will be digital from start to finish, and an analog step in getting the color conversions right makes everything break.
In this case, I need access to the raw data of other works of art. If these works are on DVD, and I'm restricted to using analog film to compare colors and color conversions, the above mentioned movie is much less likely to be made.
Paper gets published in a respected scientific journal next to studies on DNA and plant ecology. Gets reprinted in the online edition. What then?
Save the whales, the birds, the trees (ha!), and the waters, stop the $BADPEOPLE from doing $BADTHING to $PLACE, fill out the form, turn in the survey, be aware of $BADTHING, write your congressperson about $BADTHING, write $BADPEOPLE about $BADTHING and tell them that $BADTHING isn't a good thing, send more money, here are some stamps can you send us some money, we don't guilt-trip you by sending you stamps can you send us some money, did you know about $BADTHING, send us some money and we'll fight it....ARRGGHHH.
None of the stuff I'm talking about is from the ACLU, and all of it started after I sent in my name and money.
I know, I'm a moron.
I'm happy to just get some bills in the mail, now.
I do get local ACLU news, candiate summaries, and the like, too, and that stuff I don't mind. But this other stuff....
The same way as everything else. People who already don't see your ads won't want to buy your product anyway.
Typical Russians...you'd think they'd want to launch them using a rocket or something...
We should create an industry spanning union.
"Help, the internet is down and I can't videoconference in to the bid meeting!"
"I'm sorry Mr. VP; I'm on strike. But maybe we could talk about that firewall while your competitors are making money?"
A CPU in a box that sits under your desk, manipulating the bits that you tell it to, is able to make certain assumptions that make writing the operating system easier. The challenge of writing an operating system that can operate across platforms--where, perhaps, not all machines are equally trustworthy, or maybe where some processors may disappear completly (how do you handle lost data efficiently?)--is still the same question ("how do you use these resources to get work done?"), but the answer isn't the same.
You are correct in that being distrubted doesn't help manage resources--in fact, it's a pain. The advantage being distributed offers is in having the cycles available to get more/bigger stuff done.
Now, to answer the original question:
An AI would probably find use in such a system. It could conceivably be trained and/or learn to recognize, for instance, unreliable nodes in the system, and perhaps only distribute less important work to that node. Where the AI itself would run would be an interesting problem, and is really an extension of the question "is the distributed OS symmetric?" (Note that things like Seti@Home are /not/ symmetric, as it has a central "OS node" that dolls out work to other nodes, which then respond with answers. This is the same thing as a current day consumer OS that runs the OS on, say, just one CPU, and never runs any part of itself on any other CPU, even if they are idle.)
An AI could be used in any number of other jobs that such an operating system might need to do (e.g. allocating memory, scheduling jobs, etc.), but really an AI--as I usually think of them, anyway--is probably overkill. The simple algorithms currently employed in traditional OS's are probably sufficient...but you never know. That's why it's an interesting question.
A better [perhaps] approach might be to consolidate large sections of the spectrum under a single "data carrier" protocol, with a much more end to end approach (like the Internet). As we've all seen, freeing the users (whether they be hardware builders or cellphone callers) with open connectivty--where you just put your data 'on the air' and let it arrive at your target--generates lots of good things. It should also be more efficient overall.
One of the first catches I see to such use is that realtime use (e.g. cellphones) would require more reliablity--and I mean reliablity on a quality sense, not a basic funcationality sense-- than the Internet generally provides. Perhaps you could split the protocol up into 'reliablity zones', where some of it uses more bandwidth to provide better service. Companies could pay a premium for putting data onto this network. More time-tolerent services might use a more latency prone slice, and pay less.
Hmm, and any inefficiences in having sectioned spectrum might be alleviated if this magical protocol had some kind of dynamic frequency allocation scheme. Need more real-time bandwidth? Expand the RealTime block of frequencies. Need less? Open up some room for more latency tolerent devices (e.g. text messaging). Actually, this problem reminds me of my OS classes I took in college....
Incorrect. You just can't have your life, liberty, or property taken away without due process of law.
Really. I'm not kidding.
This power is limited by the fact that Congress can't make certain laws (e.g. anti-freedom of expression) to be duely processed in the first place.
I'm not a lawyer. I have, however, actually read the Consitution all the way through. It helps. Sometimes. ;)
AMD, like Intel, has two general lines of processors, those meant for the higher end, and those meant for the lower end. Athlon is the most recent, and, really, the first, high end type processor from AMD. Further high end processors (e.g. "Thunderbird") will be coming out Soon from AMD to propagate the high end. Duron ("Spitfire") is the latest low end processor--it just happens to be based on the same core as the Athlon and really fast, so it actually compares to the current line of Athlons in preformance.
Speculation is that the next Athlon will once again establish the performance difference between the low end and the high end...and, yes, that would mean that the new Athlon is going to be fast
I mean, other than the part where you imply you're saying something different, and the generalized insults you added to the end.
Are you trying to give better examples of causation and correlation? Or are you trying to say that the previous examples weren't valid? Or is your point that the examples were "rediculously exagerated"?
Because being exaggerated, when you're trying to show how something is different than another thing, isn't necessarily a bad thing. He wasn't trying to prove the truth value of the statements, after all, but rather appeared to be demonstrating the difference in form.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, lest I be accused of "strawmanning," but I don't see how the examples you gave are any more clear than the previous examples, nor more correct, nor any less exaggerated, form wise.
Or, maybe you just wanted to rant about "all [us] guys" who are "over-sensitive non-psych educated geeks who think they know everything"?
Putting such a blatant and obvious over-generalization in a discussion about correlation and causation isn't such a good idea. Besides the fact that most people already know that lots of smart young kids are egotistical, if you were were trying to make a point (and not just an excuse to rant), insulting the audience you apparently think you're talking to doesn't exactly seem like a great use of time.
But maybe I'm confused.