The -om suffix in 'lagom' is actually an archaic dative ending
I curious to know where you heard that. The other explanation (om -- 'around') I've heard a dozen times before, it is quite popular among people giving talks about Swedish culture.
Ehm. Doesn't the content of the message matter even more? Try reading a maths textbook as fast as your IRC:-)
You can get the chat much faster since it has lower entropy. An other way to put it is that plain talk is more redundant, video is of course an other magnitude more redundant. A completely different matter is ofcourse that we get the impression of a richer content. The amount of information per time unit you can take in is most likely of similar magnitude in radio and TV etc.
Look for the book Norretranders, Tor - "Mark the World", if you are interested in this topic.
Not only did noone in 1908 even know that a nuclear bomb was possible. This was a decade before WW1, and bombs dropped from airplanes was not used in war until the end of WW1.
Sounds like a typical urban legend to me, suitable that it is modded as "Interesting" cause being interesting is what keeps urban legends going:-)
BTW, this one is even below the dignity of von Däniken IMHO.
From what I've heard on Euronews most of al-Qaida have been smuggled out of Afghanistan by now. So actually I don't think I'm that far off, although I meant to write per thousand (in Swedish this is promille, which I happened to turn into ppm) and include the Taliban in the count.
There is no way that any organized religion on the face of this planet that has any credibility at all could possibly condone the actions of Sept 11. Therefore, Ramadan is not an issue to me since the people that are hiding behind the shield of Islam do not actually believe in Islam at all.
A postponing of bombings during Ramadan would not be for the sake of the terrorists, but for the people of Afghanistan---those who have nothing to do with al-Qaida, but happen to be Muslims.
Regarding Vietnam I disagree with you. I think the US lost because we turned the Vietnam people against us by killing too many innocents. This is exactly what we are about to do with the Afghan people now.
But this is a *war* and there are bound to be civilian casualties. I'm sure not all Germans were Nazis, but we had to attack that country for the better of the rest of the world (and for the security of our own nation).
Ofcourse we had to do something about Germany. But I actually think the terror bombings of Dresden was wrong as well. They only served to terrorize the German people.
Civilians die during war--it's not a good thing, but a fact of war. What percentage of our casualties have been civilian so far, 99.9%?
There is ofcourse a subtle difference here. Afghanistan did not declare war on us, al-Qaida did. Yet it is Afghanistan we are attacking. Oh well, their government are almost terrorists to their people anyways.
Giving the Taliban and al-Qaida a month to reorganize in the middle of this would be a huge mistake.
This might be a good point, but I'm afraid I know too little about the allied strategy right now to tell for sure. Though to me it looks more like terror bombings now (and showing the world that we are doing something). How many strategic targets are there in Afghanistan anyway?
...do you think the bin Laden would pay the same respect to us?
No. But it is not the enemy I want to pay respect, it those who happen to be his neighbors.
Re: Bombing Sicily to get rid of the Mafia
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Are you implying that the government in Sicily sympathize with the mafia?
Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore.
That may be right, but unfortunately we are not just bombing terrorists. The way I see it we have two options here.
1. Assume that all Afghans are terrorists. Then we might as well nuke the entire nation out of existence. That would be much simpler than what we are doing now.
2. Assume that most Afghans are not terrorists. Then I think we should pay the suffering people some respect by at least respecting their holy month. That would also deny al Quaida the chance of pretending this is a war against Islam.
Re: Actually...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The point of the parent poster was of course that we are not just bombing terrorists, but by not paying respect to Ramadan we act as if we do. Actually less than 1 ppm of the people targeted by the bombs are terrorists--they just happen to live in the wrong country. When the next terrorist act strikes the US I wonder if you are just going to sit back and say, oh that serves the Bush administration right for boming Afghanistan...
And before you flame me, please note that I don't think the bombing is an all bad thing, just that it isn't an all good thing either.
The natural universe is, in its very nature, a fitness function. For living creatures, survival is determined by the fitness function of the universe.
Ehm, you could specify an abstract fitness function in this way, but try implementing it:-) There are other living creatures also existing in the world, so your fitness function would have to have all aspects of the world (i.e. locations and mental states of all creatures, and even the location of each grain of sand) as input. This is not a reasonable approach, which I believe is what vulg4r_m0nk meant when saying that fitness functions don't apply.
You're basically swapping sub branches of your program around to see what works - tranversing the space of all possible programs - it takes *a lot* of random attempts
This is quite a good summary of GP, and it also describes why IMHO GP should be the last thing to try. i.e. use it when everything else has failed...
I think reinforcement learning (RL) methods are much more promising in general, and should be tried before GP whenever they are applicable.
In GP you set up a fitness function that evaluates the performance of the entire program, while in RL the reward function rewards individual actions i.e. small parts of the program. The big problem in both cases is the design of the fitness/reward function. In GP you want it to increase fitness as your agents grow better and better (yes this is difficult, I tried it once in the RoboCup simulation league). In RL you can give rewards very easily by basically saying good/bad to the program after it has performed an action. The problem in RL is that the program has to find out which of the recent actions caused the reward. There is a large number of algorithms for distributing rewards among recent actions. However, they all do better than GP, since GP is equivalent to the extreme case of just one reward after the program has finished running.
Why not pass it as a string? It would most likely come in as user-entered data anyhow.
Because you will want to convert that string into a tree representation internally. There are huge advantages with a tree representation when computing a derivative. For one thing you will be able to use the chain rule: d[f(g(x))]/dx=f'(g(x))*g'(x).
1) Having just finished "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" I feel that I have to point out that he did not specifically mention the peer-review process as reinforcing the 'old boys' network. But he discussed the inertia of the scientific community in general to a great extent, and actually mentioned several advantages of the resistance towards new theories.
2) The same problems you mention are inherent in putting a data-set on the web. To paraphrase you nobody *really* knows whether data are "correct" either. It could for instance be adjusted to fit theory, or obtained in an erroneous way by accident. But I suppose this might be more difficult in some fields, just like the ability to judge an article by it's contents.
In general I think that making supplementary information available is a good idea, in my field that would however be algorithm implementations rather than raw data. The problem you mention about reluctance to publish data also applies here. Usually algorithm development (or data aquisition in you case) takes a lot of time and effort, and you wouldn't necessary want someone else to piggyback all your hard work and get all the credit by making a minor improvement. Thus I don't think you should require submission of supplements, but rather encourage it. Supplying extra material could also help convince stubborn reviewers in my field, since this will allow them to try things out for themselves.
Require a strong identity check to create an account, there's your credibility.
Ehm, pardon me, but I've seen lots of junk posted here that got moderated as +5 Insightful or similar, so I doubt that simply adding an identity check would do. You will still have the lighthearted moderations.
Unless you're trying to model a real CPU, why screw up the acrchitecture with unnecessary registers. Just have it do everything on the stack. In an all software VM, regsiters buy you nothing but unneeded compiler complexity.
But almost all java VMs compile to native code (JIT VMs). When you are going to run your programs on a real CPU, it would simplify things a lot for a JIT to be able to map JVM registers to real ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Why PDF was made, I never understood...
Apparently not everyone has use for the extra features. My favourites are:
I'm just a theta(n) person in a theta(log n) world." would work better;)
Is it just me, or was that a scientology reference? :-)
The -om suffix in 'lagom' is actually an archaic dative ending
I curious to know where you heard that. The other explanation (om -- 'around') I've heard a dozen times before, it is quite popular among people giving talks about Swedish culture.
Ehm. Doesn't the content of the message matter even more? Try reading a maths textbook as fast as your IRC :-)
You can get the chat much faster since it has lower entropy. An other way to put it is that plain talk is more redundant, video is of course an other magnitude more redundant. A completely different matter is ofcourse that we get the impression of a richer content. The amount of information per time unit you can take in is most likely of similar magnitude in radio and TV etc.
Look for the book Norretranders, Tor - "Mark the World", if you are interested in this topic.
Impressive! It fails to distinguish between past and present tense of "read" though.
Not only did noone in 1908 even know that a nuclear bomb was possible. This was a decade before WW1, and bombs dropped from airplanes was not used in war until the end of WW1.
Sounds like a typical urban legend to me, suitable that it is modded as "Interesting" cause being interesting is what keeps urban legends going :-)
BTW, this one is even below the dignity of von Däniken IMHO.
Apparently the first expedition to reach ground zero and leave any records was twenty years late. Perhaps this explains it?
James Oberg, Tunguska Echoes Donning Press, 1982, Chapter Seven, pp. 132-145
Large parts of the FPU in modern CPUs are asynchronous.
Sure, but I was rather pondering this isomorphism thing...
From what I've heard on Euronews most of al-Qaida have been smuggled out of Afghanistan by now. So actually I don't think I'm that far off, although I meant to write per thousand (in Swedish this is promille, which I happened to turn into ppm) and include the Taliban in the count.
There is no way that any organized religion on the face of this planet that has any credibility at all could possibly condone the actions of Sept 11. Therefore, Ramadan is not an issue to me since the people that are hiding behind the shield of Islam do not actually believe in Islam at all.
A postponing of bombings during Ramadan would not be for the sake of the terrorists, but for the people of Afghanistan---those who have nothing to do with al-Qaida, but happen to be Muslims.
Regarding Vietnam I disagree with you. I think the US lost because we turned the Vietnam people against us by killing too many innocents. This is exactly what we are about to do with the Afghan people now.
But this is a *war* and there are bound to be civilian casualties. I'm sure not all Germans were Nazis, but we had to attack that country for the better of the rest of the world (and for the security of our own nation).
Ofcourse we had to do something about Germany. But I actually think the terror bombings of Dresden was wrong as well. They only served to terrorize the German people.
Civilians die during war--it's not a good thing, but a fact of war. What percentage of our casualties have been civilian so far, 99.9%?
There is ofcourse a subtle difference here. Afghanistan did not declare war on us, al-Qaida did. Yet it is Afghanistan we are attacking. Oh well, their government are almost terrorists to their people anyways.
Giving the Taliban and al-Qaida a month to reorganize in the middle of this would be a huge mistake.
This might be a good point, but I'm afraid I know too little about the allied strategy right now to tell for sure. Though to me it looks more like terror bombings now (and showing the world that we are doing something). How many strategic targets are there in Afghanistan anyway?
No. But it is not the enemy I want to pay respect, it those who happen to be his neighbors.
Are you implying that the government in Sicily sympathize with the mafia?
Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore.
That may be right, but unfortunately we are not just bombing terrorists.
The way I see it we have two options here.
1. Assume that all Afghans are terrorists. Then we might as well nuke the entire nation out of existence. That would be much simpler than what we are doing now.
2. Assume that most Afghans are not terrorists. Then I think we should pay the suffering people some respect by at least respecting their holy month. That would also deny al Quaida the chance of pretending this is a war against Islam.
The point of the parent poster was of course that we are not just bombing terrorists, but by not paying respect to Ramadan we act as if we do. Actually less than 1 ppm of the people targeted by the bombs are terrorists--they just happen to live in the wrong country. When the next terrorist act strikes the US I wonder if you are just going to sit back and say, oh that serves the Bush administration right for boming Afghanistan...
And before you flame me, please note that I don't think the bombing is an all bad thing, just that it isn't an all good thing either.
The fitness function for humans is how many decendants they have.
That's not the fitness function, at least not in GP. The fitness function determines the number of decendants.
The natural universe is, in its very nature, a fitness function. For living creatures, survival is determined by the fitness function of the universe.
Ehm, you could specify an abstract fitness function in this way, but try implementing it :-) There are other living creatures also existing in the world, so your fitness function would have to have all aspects of the world (i.e. locations and mental states of all creatures, and even the location of each grain of sand) as input. This is not a reasonable approach, which I believe is what vulg4r_m0nk meant when saying that fitness functions don't apply.
You're basically swapping sub branches of your program around to see what works - tranversing the space of all possible programs - it takes *a lot* of random attempts
This is quite a good summary of GP, and it also describes why IMHO GP should be the last thing to try. i.e. use it when everything else has failed...
I think reinforcement learning (RL) methods are much more promising in general, and should be tried before GP whenever they are applicable.
In GP you set up a fitness function that evaluates the performance of the entire program, while in RL the reward function rewards individual actions i.e. small parts of the program. The big problem in both cases is the design of the fitness/reward function. In GP you want it to increase fitness as your agents grow better and better (yes this is difficult, I tried it once in the RoboCup simulation league). In RL you can give rewards very easily by basically saying good/bad to the program after it has performed an action. The problem in RL is that the program has to find out which of the recent actions caused the reward. There is a large number of algorithms for distributing rewards among recent actions. However, they all do better than GP, since GP is equivalent to the extreme case of just one reward after the program has finished running.
Scary. It hasn't bounced. Must be a valid email address.
Or they simply choose not to bounce email to invalid addresses.
Why not pass it as a string? It would most likely come in as user-entered data anyhow.
Because you will want to convert that string into a tree representation internally. There are huge advantages with a tree representation when computing a derivative. For one thing you will be able to use the chain rule: d[f(g(x))]/dx=f'(g(x))*g'(x).
They still have, because both Emacs and Sawfish are written in C. On the other hand they do use LISP as a scripting language, as does GIMP btw.
1) Having just finished "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" I feel that I have to point out that he did not specifically mention the peer-review process as reinforcing the 'old boys' network. But he discussed the inertia of the scientific community in general to a great extent, and actually mentioned several advantages of the resistance towards new theories.
2) The same problems you mention are inherent in putting a data-set on the web. To paraphrase you nobody *really* knows whether data are "correct" either. It could for instance be adjusted to fit theory, or obtained in an erroneous way by accident. But I suppose this might be more difficult in some fields, just like the ability to judge an article by it's contents.
In general I think that making supplementary information available is a good idea, in my field that would however be algorithm implementations rather than raw data. The problem you mention about reluctance to publish data also applies here. Usually algorithm development (or data aquisition in you case) takes a lot of time and effort, and you wouldn't necessary want someone else to piggyback all your hard work and get all the credit by making a minor improvement. Thus I don't think you should require submission of supplements, but rather encourage it. Supplying extra material could also help convince stubborn reviewers in my field, since this will allow them to try things out for themselves.
Require a strong identity check to create an account, there's your credibility.
Ehm, pardon me, but I've seen lots of junk posted here that got moderated as +5 Insightful or similar, so I doubt that simply adding an identity check would do. You will still have the lighthearted moderations.
Unless you're trying to model a real CPU, why screw up the acrchitecture with unnecessary registers. Just have it do everything on the stack. In an all software VM, regsiters buy you nothing but unneeded compiler complexity.
But almost all java VMs compile to native code (JIT VMs). When you are going to run your programs on a real CPU, it would simplify things a lot for a JIT to be able to map JVM registers to real ones.
In java i was required to read in each individual variable (and yes..there are ALOT of them)
That is indeed very slow if you dont use buffered streams. If you don't, try something like this:
FileInputStream file = new FileInputStream(filename);
BufferedInputStream bis = new BufferedInputStream(file);
data = new DataInputStream(bis);