Thanks, I did read the summary - was just pondering through the rough implications out-loud of why I thought it *seemed* slow to *me*
My thinking assumed every pair is a potential match and, yes, that you know *immediately* when you have the *right* match.... obviously it is trivial to consider the implications of having to search every piece for the *best* match - you end up searching every piece rather than an average of 50% of the pieces, so double the number of comparison required
I suspect why this is MUCH more impressive than my gut feel is that all pieces are compared and the best match is made first, then all remaining pieces are compared for the next best match and so on.
As it happens this is NOT what humans despite what the summary suggest... humans will typically pick the EASIEST matches first looking for unique patterns in the puzzle picture rather than selecting the BEST matches.
It does raise the question, why is it NOT trivial to know when you have a match ?
Obviously I don't understand the complexity here but it seems like that is a long time.
By my logic: - pick 1 of the pieces as a start and pick 1 side of that piece - now pick another piece and there are 4 possible arrangements to match your selected starting side (assuming square-ish pieces) - on average, you'll need to check 1/2 of the remaining 9,999 pieces to get the matching one and each of 4 orientations - so the first side of the first piece will requires, on average, 19998 checks - next edge you select will need 19996 checks - and so on
So that basically totals 99 million checks over 24 hours...
At a implied rate of 1100 or so comparisons per second... ok - dont worry... I guess that's pretty good when you have to decide whether each combination is a match of not.
Sounds like an interesting problem - guess I should read the paper !
Technically not third to reach the moon - Japan put up an orbiter (Hiten) in 1993 - ESA put up SMART-1 in 2003 - India crashed their Chandrayaan probe (deliberately an impact mission) a few years ago
And even then, both India and the Europeans are targeting manned landings before China.
Although even Iran has announced for 2025 so clearly some of these need to be taken with some skepticism
Slow but steady progress since initiating this program in 1992.
With a first Chinese moonwalk estimated for 2024 that is 32 years total (with already 50 years of rocket research in the world to leverage off)... makes you understand just much the US threw at its lunar programme to manage going from the start of the Mercury program to moonwalk in less than 11 years
Still don't get the general obsession with privacy - i do get the need just not the "obsession" for most people.
For 99% of people, nobody really gives a damn about your online life... no they aren't tracking your every move... you are just boring and not worth the effort, just like the rest of us.
The other 1% - well that's a different case.... perhaps using google plus or facebook at all ain't so smart for them !
If Jesus wept over a typo, I'd hate to think what he'd make of the impact of 2000 years worth of compounding transcription errors on the biblical texts.
Seems interesting but worth remembering this is on old product roadmap from August 2010 which broadly outlines: 2011 - TV App for Xbox 360 2012 - Pay TV App for Xbox 360 2013 - Xbox 720 & Kinect V2 2014 - Glasses (WiFi / Living Room) 2015 - Glasses (Mobile)
Seems like a useful product for gaming input, potentially 3D display in glasses & maybe augmented reality for say PvP in room rather then on-screen. The mobile glasses concept seems a bit ambitious but it was a 5-yr roadmap
I'd read this as a head-mounted display, mic & headphones etc.. interesting but not revolutionary... And may be completely out of date too ????
Seems interesting but worth remembering this is on old product roadmap from August 2010 which broadly outlines:
2011 - TV App for Xbox 360
2012 - Pay TV App for Xbox 360
2013 - Xbox 720 & Kinect V2
2014 - Glasses (WiFi / Living Room)
2015 - Glasses (Mobile)
Seems like a useful product for gaming input, potentially 3D display in glasses & maybe augmented reality for say PvP in room rather then on-screen. The mobile glasses concept seems a bit ambitious but it was a 5-yr roadmap
I'd read this as a head-mounted display, mic & headphones etc.. interesting but not revolutionary...
And may be completely out of date too ????
There have been vandals as long as there have been things to vandalise...
Neanderthals lived in social groups so there were Neanderthal kids being dragged around by Neanderthal parents and this was before the internet and even before TV... you work it out - bored kids + pristine cave walls !
165-180% scaling of the size is a pretty material difference - particularly when considering 3-dimensions making for 4.5-6x increase in volume.
The current vehicle has a footprint that is 15% the size of an F-22 Raptor (while the FUTURE scaled up version is roughly the same size) and a payload capacity of 7ft by 4ft.... that is not enough to carry life-support system let alone the systems and 1 or more human passengers
In a pinch maybe yes... but this is 1/2 size unmanned version of the non-yet-existent X-37C that was designed to fit in the cargo bay of the Shuttle
You know, like a 1/2 size version of bicycle designed to fit in your car's trunk might get you to work in a pinch... not ideal and not even practical, but theoretically possible.
If you are really interested there is plenty of information around the internet... take a look at a http://ww2.csse.unimelb.edu.au/dept/about/csirac/ which has good detail including emulator.. It was suitably modest with RAM of 768 20-bit words and storage capacity of 2048 words.
I found the 1959 programming manual quite amusing, particularly the section on binary representations which suggets you reference a manual page for numbers up to 32 - really drives home the point how new all of this was !!!!
"The user should gradually become familiar with the binary symbols for the integers 0,l,2,.,.30,31, which are listed on page (i), but these can be worked out mentally by partitioning the integer into such of the components 16,8,4,2,1 as it contains. Thus 21 = 16 + 4 + 1 = 10101 (binary). It is useful to understand the principles underlying addition and subtraction in the binary system. The addition of corresponding digits follows the table:-
0 + 0 gives 0 with 0 to carry
0 + 1 “ 1 “ 0 “
1 + 0 “ 1 “ 0 “
1 + 1 “ 0 “ 1 “
Thus: -
1010 1101 1100 11010
+1100 +1101 -1010 -01101
10110 11010 0010 01101
where in the case of subtraction the digit is borrowed rather than carried.
While there is no doubt that Kepler have delivered amazing results, it is has also effectively delivered what it was designed to do - as others have mentioned, everything from here onwards is a bonus.
But unfortunately, it also gives a strong argument not to roll-out new mission and technologies such as Coronagraph or interferometer missions.So we are stuck a great project that will continue to indirectly deduce the presence of planets and will probably continue to delay/cancel projects that can directly image exoplanets and detect planets orders of magnitude smaller - the cancelled Terrestial Planet Finder being a great example.
We are stuck at the "if" planet exist phase instead of moving on to the "what" the planets are phase...
Nonetheless, still a lot better than cancelling Kepler altogether I suspect.
To a certain extent the ratings are relative to each other not absolute, although one can infer absolute values based on previous history.
Otherwise when the whole economy moved (recession vs boom) you would need to move EVERY rating up or down - instead they tend to move only the companies with abnormal exposure to the economic cycles to maintain the relativity.
Despite what they say, it is more an art than a science.
Ratings agencies will drive credit ratings which will in turn impact some less sophisticated lenders who will be restricted from lending to companies below certain ratings - this is more part of the sub-prime issues
More sophisticated lenders will do their own assessments of the risk of lending to certain corporations or governments and are much more reactive to changes - the debt markets are actually quite efficient in that sense
The bigger problem is where the underlying entity can not be assessed properly by the players in the debt markets - they have no choice but to rely on credit ratings... this was the major problem with the sub-prime stuff
For an individual, you credit history (and I believe credit score in the US - I'm not from around there!) is dependent on your repayment history - and your ability to borrow an AMOUNT is generally dependent on your ability to repay that AMOUNT. That's your "credit rating has NOTHING to do with how much you borrow"
For a corporate or government, it is entirely different - the ratings agencies assess your ability to repay your current level of debt and as you increase debt, they re-assess your ability to continue to repay the increased amount. It has nothing to do with past history - in fact, a company can default then restructure and they'll be rated on their ability to repay future debt (not their past history)... may apply to certain banks, insurance and automotive companies recently !!!!
So I suspect you are confusing credit rating (corporate) with credit history/score (individual)
Simplest problem ever... it is not your code, it belongs to the company that employed you
Sorry to blunt but it is attitudes like that causing issues for IT folks progressing through companies - no other profession (eg engineers, marketing, finance, etc) would dare complain about "not getting credit" if a company went in a different direction with their work after they'd left.
Slashdot Mirror
You sir, should be writing the summaries ... would have saved me reading the paper - which I eventually did do after posting my random musings.
Thanks, I did read the summary - was just pondering through the rough implications out-loud of why I thought it *seemed* slow to *me*
My thinking assumed every pair is a potential match and, yes, that you know *immediately* when you have the *right* match .... obviously it is trivial to consider the implications of having to search every piece for the *best* match - you end up searching every piece rather than an average of 50% of the pieces, so double the number of comparison required
I suspect why this is MUCH more impressive than my gut feel is that all pieces are compared and the best match is made first, then all remaining pieces are compared for the next best match and so on.
As it happens this is NOT what humans despite what the summary suggest ... humans will typically pick the EASIEST matches first looking for unique patterns in the puzzle picture rather than selecting the BEST matches.
It does raise the question, why is it NOT trivial to know when you have a match ?
Obviously I don't understand the complexity here but it seems like that is a long time.
By my logic:
- pick 1 of the pieces as a start and pick 1 side of that piece
- now pick another piece and there are 4 possible arrangements to match your selected starting side (assuming square-ish pieces)
- on average, you'll need to check 1/2 of the remaining 9,999 pieces to get the matching one and each of 4 orientations
- so the first side of the first piece will requires, on average, 19998 checks
- next edge you select will need 19996 checks
- and so on
So that basically totals 99 million checks over 24 hours ...
At a implied rate of 1100 or so comparisons per second ... ok - dont worry ... I guess that's pretty good when you have to decide whether each combination is a match of not.
Sounds like an interesting problem - guess I should read the paper !
ummm .... #winning I guess ... for acts of douchebaggery
Technically not third to reach the moon
- Japan put up an orbiter (Hiten) in 1993
- ESA put up SMART-1 in 2003
- India crashed their Chandrayaan probe (deliberately an impact mission) a few years ago
And even then, both India and the Europeans are targeting manned landings before China.
Although even Iran has announced for 2025 so clearly some of these need to be taken with some skepticism
Slow but steady progress since initiating this program in 1992.
With a first Chinese moonwalk estimated for 2024 that is 32 years total (with already 50 years of rocket research in the world to leverage off) ... makes you understand just much the US threw at its lunar programme to manage going from the start of the Mercury program to moonwalk in less than 11 years
More importantly, will it render quickly? I suspect given Apple's policies it will need to use webkit and therefore not much to gain there.
My pet hate is trying to scroll complex pages in Safari - don't care about gestures, tabs, hidden GUI elements
Still don't get the general obsession with privacy - i do get the need just not the "obsession" for most people.
For 99% of people, nobody really gives a damn about your online life ... no they aren't tracking your every move ... you are just boring and not worth the effort, just like the rest of us.
The other 1% - well that's a different case .... perhaps using google plus or facebook at all ain't so smart for them !
Really dude? Typo or grammar - what do you think?
If Jesus wept over a typo, I'd hate to think what he'd make of the impact of 2000 years worth of compounding transcription errors on the biblical texts.
Try again with formatting !
Seems interesting but worth remembering this is on old product roadmap from August 2010 which broadly outlines:
2011 - TV App for Xbox 360
2012 - Pay TV App for Xbox 360
2013 - Xbox 720 & Kinect V2
2014 - Glasses (WiFi / Living Room)
2015 - Glasses (Mobile)
Seems like a useful product for gaming input, potentially 3D display in glasses & maybe augmented reality for say PvP in room rather then on-screen. The mobile glasses concept seems a bit ambitious but it was a 5-yr roadmap
I'd read this as a head-mounted display, mic & headphones etc .. interesting but not revolutionary ... And may be completely out of date too ????
Seems interesting but worth remembering this is on old product roadmap from August 2010 which broadly outlines: 2011 - TV App for Xbox 360 2012 - Pay TV App for Xbox 360 2013 - Xbox 720 & Kinect V2 2014 - Glasses (WiFi / Living Room) 2015 - Glasses (Mobile) Seems like a useful product for gaming input, potentially 3D display in glasses & maybe augmented reality for say PvP in room rather then on-screen. The mobile glasses concept seems a bit ambitious but it was a 5-yr roadmap I'd read this as a head-mounted display, mic & headphones etc .. interesting but not revolutionary ...
And may be completely out of date too ????
well played, sir, well played !
There have been vandals as long as there have been things to vandalise ...
Neanderthals lived in social groups so there were Neanderthal kids being dragged around by Neanderthal parents and this was before the internet and even before TV ... you work it out - bored kids + pristine cave walls !
165-180% scaling of the size is a pretty material difference - particularly when considering 3-dimensions making for 4.5-6x increase in volume.
The current vehicle has a footprint that is 15% the size of an F-22 Raptor (while the FUTURE scaled up version is roughly the same size) and a payload capacity of 7ft by 4ft .... that is not enough to carry life-support system let alone the systems and 1 or more human passengers
In a pinch maybe yes ... but this is 1/2 size unmanned version of the non-yet-existent X-37C that was designed to fit in the cargo bay of the Shuttle
You know, like a 1/2 size version of bicycle designed to fit in your car's trunk might get you to work in a pinch ... not ideal and not even practical, but theoretically possible.
Got him, yes! Piss off, you're out!
Agreed - dont hold your breath ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand's_nuclear-free_zone
If you are really interested there is plenty of information around the internet ... take a look at a http://ww2.csse.unimelb.edu.au/dept/about/csirac/ which has good detail including emulator .. It was suitably modest with RAM of 768 20-bit words and storage capacity of 2048 words.
I found the 1959 programming manual quite amusing, particularly the section on binary representations which suggets you reference a manual page for numbers up to 32 - really drives home the point how new all of this was !!!!
"The user should gradually become familiar with the binary symbols for the integers 0,l,2,.,.30,31, which are listed on page (i), but these can be worked out mentally by partitioning the integer into such of the components 16,8,4,2,1 as it contains. Thus 21 = 16 + 4 + 1 = 10101 (binary). It is useful to understand the principles underlying addition and subtraction in the binary system. The addition of corresponding digits follows the table:-
0 + 0 gives 0 with 0 to carry
0 + 1 “ 1 “ 0 “
1 + 0 “ 1 “ 0 “
1 + 1 “ 0 “ 1 “
Thus: -
1010 1101 1100 11010
+1100 +1101 -1010 -01101
10110 11010 0010 01101
where in the case of subtraction the digit is borrowed rather than carried.
While there is no doubt that Kepler have delivered amazing results, it is has also effectively delivered what it was designed to do - as others have mentioned, everything from here onwards is a bonus.
But unfortunately, it also gives a strong argument not to roll-out new mission and technologies such as Coronagraph or interferometer missions.So we are stuck a great project that will continue to indirectly deduce the presence of planets and will probably continue to delay/cancel projects that can directly image exoplanets and detect planets orders of magnitude smaller - the cancelled Terrestial Planet Finder being a great example.
We are stuck at the "if" planet exist phase instead of moving on to the "what" the planets are phase ...
Nonetheless, still a lot better than cancelling Kepler altogether I suspect.
I think for the purpose of comparing coin denominations, 1.2 cents is about 1 cent !
To a certain extent the ratings are relative to each other not absolute, although one can infer absolute values based on previous history.
Otherwise when the whole economy moved (recession vs boom) you would need to move EVERY rating up or down - instead they tend to move only the companies with abnormal exposure to the economic cycles to maintain the relativity.
Despite what they say, it is more an art than a science.
Yes and no ...
Ratings agencies will drive credit ratings which will in turn impact some less sophisticated lenders who will be restricted from lending to companies below certain ratings - this is more part of the sub-prime issues
More sophisticated lenders will do their own assessments of the risk of lending to certain corporations or governments and are much more reactive to changes - the debt markets are actually quite efficient in that sense
The bigger problem is where the underlying entity can not be assessed properly by the players in the debt markets - they have no choice but to rely on credit ratings ... this was the major problem with the sub-prime stuff
Actually, that is NOT correct.
For an individual, you credit history (and I believe credit score in the US - I'm not from around there!) is dependent on your repayment history - and your ability to borrow an AMOUNT is generally dependent on your ability to repay that AMOUNT. That's your "credit rating has NOTHING to do with how much you borrow"
For a corporate or government, it is entirely different - the ratings agencies assess your ability to repay your current level of debt and as you increase debt, they re-assess your ability to continue to repay the increased amount. It has nothing to do with past history - in fact, a company can default then restructure and they'll be rated on their ability to repay future debt (not their past history) ... may apply to certain banks, insurance and automotive companies recently !!!!
So I suspect you are confusing credit rating (corporate) with credit history/score (individual)
I suspect they might take more than 1.06km ... perhaps even as much as 1.60km ;-)
And i find it tragic that no-one else has picked up on your typo yet !
Simplest problem ever ... it is not your code, it belongs to the company that employed you
Sorry to blunt but it is attitudes like that causing issues for IT folks progressing through companies - no other profession (eg engineers, marketing, finance, etc) would dare complain about "not getting credit" if a company went in a different direction with their work after they'd left.