wouldn't help, unless you did something unusual regularly, i.e. usually did something unusual. for example, if a lot of people regularly acquired material necessary to build a bomb, created fake identities, got on a plane with said bomb and identity, and then didn't blow up the plane, now that would confuse them. your suggestion would just slightly increase noise in the data. hiding trends through noise is much harder than hiding trends through bias, i.e. things that look like threat in many ways, but aren't.
There are plenty of things that taste worse than clothing. In fact, haven't you seen all those little kids sucking and chewing on their shirts all the time? Wait a minute, I'm getting a HUGE clue... I know how to solve Alabama's problem!
* runs to his study to draw a plan on the walls *
--
Computer scientists don't die. They just disassemble.
heh, well, that's kind of a subjective judgment... you choose to believe that things like love and consciousness exist in general, just like some people choose to believe that a person in a vegetative state is still "alive". These are all just abstractions that correspond to some events, properties, etc. If it's that important to you, go ahead and believe that your child with no brain loves you. You won't really be any more wrong than someone who believes that water is wet, or someone who believes they are a conscious, living being...
Life's empty, it's just nice to think otherwise sometimes.
exactly. they say that their aim is to "give children their freedom and parents peace of mind", but it would be more appropriate to say "illusion of freedom", and a teenager is already intelligent enough to understand what having a GPS device on you at all times does to limit your privacy and hence freedom, while an up to 10 year old kid would probably not give a crap, even if they understand what the device is for.
the only problem I foresee is if the watch doesn't look "cool" enough...
This is really interesting, especially considering the potential application for protecting crops. I have 2 concerns though:
1) How quickly does the substance dissipate? Would a farmer have to spray the every time it rains/there's a light breeze?
2) How long before some bugs say "ah, screw the smell, i'm hungry, dammit!" Some insects might evolve to sacrifice their natural defense from disease for the sake of a good meal, thus making the process useless... Thankfully there aren't really a whole lot of diseases that affect both insects and humans, what with us being in an entirely different phylum and all...
no offense, but that is ridiculous. there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that, for example, campus-wide wifi will disappear anytime in the next, oh, i don't know, 20 years. maybe what you say is true for the "general population", i.e. in random locations around cities, but there will remain many dense technological "hubs" like university campuses where wifi is pretty much essential.
in other words, most physically co-located large organizations will have virtually pervasive wifi availability for many years to come.
what is this "real math" you speak of? it's an application of mathematics, simple as that. is computational biology "real" biology? is it real computer science? who cares! i don't mean to use a buzzword, but we see more and more interdisciplinary applications of different theories emerging as autonomous fields. this applies to computational biology, pretty much every kind of modern (>1980) AI research, and, of course, economics and finance. it's not a bad thing that people are learning that applying knowledge from one field to solve problems in another is a good idea. quite the opposite, in fact.
truth is, this is a pretty normal way in which all fields develop. first there is heavy partitioning and abstraction, so that people can start to make sense of things. once a level of maturity is reached, the partitioning starts to become less well-defined, often leading to huge benefits.
for example, this is a trend we're seeing in wireless networking technology recently. at first, the physical layer (communication between two, and only two, machines) was completely separate from the MAC layer (communication between a physically proximate set of machines). once the field matured, and there wasn't that much room left to improve throughput of wifi networks through pure MAC layer protocols, the research started spilling over into the PHY layer. today there's a bunch of work cropping up that violates the layering principles people so neatly thought of in the early days of wireless networking. is this communications research? is it networking research? signal processing? nobody cares, as long as there's an improvement in performance. same applies to finance and econ. if you can make more money from your investments, nobody's gonna ask if you're using mathematical models, voodoo dolls, or pure guesswork (the latter of which, unfortunately, seems to be the most preferred choice up to now...).
it's a green, open-source, biofuel-based, alternative energy producing, solar power using, multitouch, next-generation, web 2.0, HTML5, social networking, streamlined, going forward, ajaxian, podcasted, virtualized, cloud-based, immersive car.
Well, this idea is already around. A Nigerian security firm offered to protect my identity and all my money if I sent them the originals of every form of identification I have, and transferred all my bank accounts to them. Since then, nobody's been able to steal anything from me!
I don't think work hours need to be strictly limited, but I do think that employers need to be forced to pay increasingly larger wages per hour once the work day exceeds 8 hrs (or 5 days a week, etc.). as an employee, i wouldn't want anyone telling me i'm not allowed to work more than 40 hours a week (i don't have a life, you see?). but i would like to get paid buttloads of CA$H for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is. no last name either. I'm like Pele. Not nearly as cool though - I make jokes on /., he's a football legend...
wouldn't help, unless you did something unusual regularly, i.e. usually did something unusual. for example, if a lot of people regularly acquired material necessary to build a bomb, created fake identities, got on a plane with said bomb and identity, and then didn't blow up the plane, now that would confuse them. your suggestion would just slightly increase noise in the data. hiding trends through noise is much harder than hiding trends through bias, i.e. things that look like threat in many ways, but aren't.
There are plenty of things that taste worse than clothing. In fact, haven't you seen all those little kids sucking and chewing on their shirts all the time? Wait a minute, I'm getting a HUGE clue... I know how to solve Alabama's problem!
* runs to his study to draw a plan on the walls *
--
Computer scientists don't die. They just disassemble.
that's an unclear threat...
heh, well, that's kind of a subjective judgment... you choose to believe that things like love and consciousness exist in general, just like some people choose to believe that a person in a vegetative state is still "alive". These are all just abstractions that correspond to some events, properties, etc. If it's that important to you, go ahead and believe that your child with no brain loves you. You won't really be any more wrong than someone who believes that water is wet, or someone who believes they are a conscious, living being...
Life's empty, it's just nice to think otherwise sometimes.
exactly. they say that their aim is to "give children their freedom and parents peace of mind", but it would be more appropriate to say "illusion of freedom", and a teenager is already intelligent enough to understand what having a GPS device on you at all times does to limit your privacy and hence freedom, while an up to 10 year old kid would probably not give a crap, even if they understand what the device is for.
the only problem I foresee is if the watch doesn't look "cool" enough...
holy crap man, don't do that, I'm hungry already...
$40? You kiddin' me? Every self-respecting Russian has made it so Mars and back with nothing but a bottle of vodka and a pickle!
This is really interesting, especially considering the potential application for protecting crops. I have 2 concerns though:
1) How quickly does the substance dissipate? Would a farmer have to spray the every time it rains/there's a light breeze?
2) How long before some bugs say "ah, screw the smell, i'm hungry, dammit!" Some insects might evolve to sacrifice their natural defense from disease for the sake of a good meal, thus making the process useless... Thankfully there aren't really a whole lot of diseases that affect both insects and humans, what with us being in an entirely different phylum and all...
it's Steve, you insensitive clod!
these kids sue the school for millions of $$ for being unhirable due to not knowing shit about the world. so yeah, good plan!
I see dump people...
what is this phone you speak of? does it have a character limit per message?
no offense, but that is ridiculous. there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that, for example, campus-wide wifi will disappear anytime in the next, oh, i don't know, 20 years. maybe what you say is true for the "general population", i.e. in random locations around cities, but there will remain many dense technological "hubs" like university campuses where wifi is pretty much essential.
in other words, most physically co-located large organizations will have virtually pervasive wifi availability for many years to come.
hell just froze over. sin to your heart's content (as long as you don't mind the cold).
what is this "real math" you speak of? it's an application of mathematics, simple as that. is computational biology "real" biology? is it real computer science? who cares! i don't mean to use a buzzword, but we see more and more interdisciplinary applications of different theories emerging as autonomous fields. this applies to computational biology, pretty much every kind of modern (>1980) AI research, and, of course, economics and finance. it's not a bad thing that people are learning that applying knowledge from one field to solve problems in another is a good idea. quite the opposite, in fact.
truth is, this is a pretty normal way in which all fields develop. first there is heavy partitioning and abstraction, so that people can start to make sense of things. once a level of maturity is reached, the partitioning starts to become less well-defined, often leading to huge benefits.
for example, this is a trend we're seeing in wireless networking technology recently. at first, the physical layer (communication between two, and only two, machines) was completely separate from the MAC layer (communication between a physically proximate set of machines). once the field matured, and there wasn't that much room left to improve throughput of wifi networks through pure MAC layer protocols, the research started spilling over into the PHY layer. today there's a bunch of work cropping up that violates the layering principles people so neatly thought of in the early days of wireless networking. is this communications research? is it networking research? signal processing? nobody cares, as long as there's an improvement in performance. same applies to finance and econ. if you can make more money from your investments, nobody's gonna ask if you're using mathematical models, voodoo dolls, or pure guesswork (the latter of which, unfortunately, seems to be the most preferred choice up to now...).
even better - giant LCD screen on the back of each car showing speed and acceleration (positive or negative), along with angles for both.
well, just put a giant "don't panic" sticker on your windshield... problem solved. (and don't forget your towel).
it's a green, open-source, biofuel-based, alternative energy producing, solar power using, multitouch, next-generation, web 2.0, HTML5, social networking, streamlined, going forward, ajaxian, podcasted, virtualized, cloud-based, immersive car.
it seems we just did some pretty serious evil..."
Well, this idea is already around. A Nigerian security firm offered to protect my identity and all my money if I sent them the originals of every form of identification I have, and transferred all my bank accounts to them. Since then, nobody's been able to steal anything from me!
Don't you mean Joe the plumb... *NO CARRIER*
no, void and chaos, get it?!
well, if you don't, I won't stop insisting that I'm a surgeon just because I managed to eat a stake all on my own last night.
I don't think work hours need to be strictly limited, but I do think that employers need to be forced to pay increasingly larger wages per hour once the work day exceeds 8 hrs (or 5 days a week, etc.). as an employee, i wouldn't want anyone telling me i'm not allowed to work more than 40 hours a week (i don't have a life, you see?). but i would like to get paid buttloads of CA$H for it.