if you want to avoid being quoted as saying stuff, or avoid having someone steal your ideas, then maybe you should choose another medium.
Blogs can amplify these kinds of problems, but they don't originate them. Office politics has been around ever since people have been working in offices.
Being afraid of someone stealing your ideas seems, to me, to indicate a poisoned corporate culture, not anything particular about blogs. Besides, wouldn't a blog tend to help, in that you'd have a dated record of you expressing your ideas?
There are some who define A.I. as simply the "bleeding-edge fringes of computer science and computer engineering." This is suggested strongly by the apparent fact that as soon as an algorithm, methodology, or other such computing device is taken up by industry and mass-produced, it has always lost its "A.I." status and merely become, well, I.T., I guess.
One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering of digits on the numeric keypad.
I don't disagree with you, but my biggest problem with almost all computer keyboards is that they have numeric keypads.
I use a mini keyboard, because I can center the alphabetic keys right in front of the monitor, and I can reach the mouse without stretching my arm. I love it.
My poor Sun workstation ground to a halt when the load average spiked, as it struggled to render all those horrible animations.
And my eyes! My eyes! Why didn't I insure my eyes when I had the chance?
Re:Are we asking questions just to sound smart?
on
Escape from the Universe
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Anything that is reacheable from our universe is, by definition, part of the universe. The concept of "escape" has no meaning in this context.
Well, we're playing with definitions here. By your definition of "universe," it's still possible to conceive that we could escape from our current "region" of the universe - which is dying - through a wormhole, to another "region" that is not so close to dying.
It just presupposes that maybe the "universe" is much bigger than we currently think, and there's a way to traverse from one "region" to another, and different regions are "dying" at different rates.
Rick Berman said today he's working on a new Trek feature film that will have "a larger scope and budget" than ever.
Did anyone else's heart sink when they read this?
I'm not sure I even understand my own feelings about it... maybe I'm just afraid that "larger scope" means "bigger explosions" or "cooler special effects." More likely the latter, especially in light of "larger budget."
Up to now, attempts to make robotic drivers has seen very little success. However, that's just because we try and make them drive on existing roads. If we could equip the road with special markings that the robots can use, and we allow only robotic traffic on those roads, then driving becomes quite a simple problem.
It would be like a middle road (no pun intended) between open roads and rail lines. For transporting freight, it would probably be fantastic. More predictable traffic, no unionized drivers. Of course, it won't be so fantastic for those unionized drivers.
So take all your fourteen-wheelers off the regular highways and put them on these special robot highways. When the safety has been proven, start allowing robotic passenger buses. Then robotic personal vehicles. We could eventually convert the bulk of our highways into robot-only roads.
Now you have your millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines. Unless we get our fuel-cell / electric / atomic cars first.
I would be proud as an American to help Canada to defend its soverignty claims.
I appreciate the sentiment. However, our respective governments must act solely in the interests of their peoples, or be accused of not doing their duty. I think international relations is, unfortunately, a cutthroat arena.
American help would never come without strings attached. I don't say this vindictively; the nature of the world stage reduces us to the lowest common denominator: all national governments must be selfish. Friendly sentiment among Americans for Canada can exert a certain amount of influence on the government, but if the U.S. backs off as a result, it only creates an opening for some other country to make a move.
No doubt I'm being too cynical. Hundreds of millions in aid and debt relief to Southeast Asia is evidence against me. But you'd be naive if you think all of that money is going without strings attached, either.
...most arctic boundaries are pretty much spelled out and agreed upon...
As a matter of fact, some of the recent high-profile unauthorized incursions into Canadian-claimed territory (high-profile within Canada, anyway) has been U.S. submarines engaging in exercises of some kind. Conservative groups in Canada have started making noise about it. And while I would never ever call myself a conservative, in this case, I agree with them.
Like I said, I appreciate your sentiment. I hope it's shared by most Americans. But Canadian territory is a serious issue to us - and it's a Canadian issue - and we have to deal with it ourselves.
Any attempts to use our waters and resources is a violation of Canadian sovereignty.
International law dictates that, unless Canada makes an effort to assert its sovereignty by, for instance, maintaining settlements, conducting patrols and challenging trespassers, then Canada would lose its right to the territory. And there are currently vast swaths of uninhabited land up there that we don't regularly patrol.
I suspect many people don't realize this. And as a fellow Canadian, I'm quite worried. Just because we make maps that declare it to be a part of Canada, doesn't mean other countries have to agree. And we mustn't get complacent just because we think that friendly countries wouldn't try and steal our territory if they felt they could get away with it. If we want to keep it, we have to work for it.
Interesting. I'm not sure I completely agree with you, but then, any good film will have multiple valid interpretations. I don't think it's useful to try and argue which one is "correct." So I don't disagree with you, anyways.
even Nausicaa... is an allegory for the real-life Cold War that was going on at the time, and what would happen if it turned hot. The environment is used in these films as a vehicle to make a point.
Now, this is really interesting, I looked at it the other way around: it seemed to me that the political machinations of human beings ended up being trivial compared to the "anger of mother earth" that was brought to life at the end of the film in the swarming ohmu. I thought the deeper point - the point Nausicaa was trying to make all the time - was that human affairs are nothing compared to our responsibilities in sharing the earth's resources, and not just with each other, but with all the species on planet.
By the end of the film, Chihiro has come to an understanding that the world doesn't revolve around her; everyone basically acts in self-interest, and therein is the value of true friends who will act on your behalf even if it's not in their interest.
She also learns independence. See, it would be one thing if Chihiro merely latched onto the Yubaba as a surrogate mother. But she doesn't. At the end of the film, she confronts even her, in order to free her parents. This is an astounding level of independence if you consider her character at the beginning of the film.
It's a level of maturity that many adults don't achieve. I can't say I'm sure that I have.
The moral in Sen to Chihiro no kamikaukushi ("Spirited Away") is basically "Don't destroy the environment" and "Children should learn manners".
Chihiro, at the beginning of the film, seems somewhat spoiled and incessantly whiney.
By the end, she has had to set her own goals, make her own decisions, accept responsibility, and carry through on a long-term plan. All without the guidance of her parents. It's the process of growing up and leaving the nest. Sorry, but "children should learn manners" just doesn't cover all that.
I find this spelling mistake to be similar to the common mistake, "seperate." (It should be "separate.")
Here it may surprise some people that their English spelling can be aided by knowing a different language.
In French, for example, the two "i"s in "ridicule" are pronounced exactly the same. For sure, many English speakers pronounce them the same, too, but some don't, and this is obviously the source of the confusion.
Also, in the French word "séparer," the "a" is clearly pronounced, whereas in English, the "a" degenerates to the schwa sound, so you can't tell what the letter should be.
It's an interesting dilemma. The only really good way to colonize Mars involves terraforming it. But the only way to preserve parts of the Martian surface precludes terraforming it.
You'd be correct if terraforming were just around the corner. But I think the technology, the resources, and the political will won't exist for such a long time that any laws or regulations we make about it now will be totally irrelevant (maybe even forgotten) by the time we are capable of terraforming Mars. My guess would be that we're talking hundreds upon hundreds, maybe even a thousand years.
The cost of building biodomes is such a small fraction of terraforming the whole planet that I can pretty much guarantee this will happen before the latter becomes an option. And I think the Martian colonies will probably even declare independence and make up their own minds about the issue, regardless of what we decide now.
Who knows, the whole notion of the territorial nation-state might even become obsolete in that time.
Re:TV is actually worse than movies...
on
TV Piracy is Next
·
· Score: 1
Try hitting the "Parent" link and you'll see what he's replying to. You probably have "Reparent Highly Rated Comments" turned on in your preferences (under Comments). With a UID as low as 65094, have you never noticed this?
To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these things has happened in the US. Therefore, I submit that it will not, in fact, become law.
Well, the signatory countries have laws too, you know.
Actually, I think the poster merely misused the word "law" slightly; he just meant that, as the article says, the treaty is to become legally binding. Of course, it only applies to the countries that have ratified it.
you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists).
Whoa, wait a minute. I hope there aren't very many journalists with agendas, 'cuz that would make them activists, not journalists.
But I guess that just depends on how cynical you are...
I think the article is absolutely right... but I would put it this way: if 99% of the scientific community accept a theory and 1% does not, then I wouldn't agree that an article that gives both sides equal footing is balanced at all.
The root of the problem is when large and powerful organizations with political interests set themselves up and declare that they are a valid part of the scientific community when they're not. And here, there's no fault with the journalists, who don't have the background to separate legitimate scientific organizations from pseudo-scientific ones.
So they created a computer model, which when run indicated drastic temperature shifts across the globe. And yet they don't know by which mechanism this occurred?
Absolutely, this is possible. It's likely that the climate models use machine learning techniques like neural networks, which is basically like function approximation. It's a gigantic generalized equation, combined with an iterative process that tunes it (or teaches it) to match a set of data, in this case, historical climate data. Once it's "taught," you turn it around and try plugging in new values and see what it predicts as a result.
Unfortunately, you can't ask a neural network why a certain result came out the way it did, because it's still just a giant equation. Human beings have to pick that equation apart to try and understand it... And believe me, this is an almost intractable problem, especially for something as huge as a global climate model.
Slashdot Mirror
if you want to avoid being quoted as saying stuff, or avoid having someone steal your ideas, then maybe you should choose another medium.
Blogs can amplify these kinds of problems, but they don't originate them. Office politics has been around ever since people have been working in offices.
Being afraid of someone stealing your ideas seems, to me, to indicate a poisoned corporate culture, not anything particular about blogs. Besides, wouldn't a blog tend to help, in that you'd have a dated record of you expressing your ideas?
There are some who define A.I. as simply the "bleeding-edge fringes of computer science and computer engineering." This is suggested strongly by the apparent fact that as soon as an algorithm, methodology, or other such computing device is taken up by industry and mass-produced, it has always lost its "A.I." status and merely become, well, I.T., I guess.
It must have been a windows sysadmin, then. But yeah, that probably is equivalent to "inexperienced", anyway.
Who's moderating this funny?? That was totally informative!
Now this post, on the other hand... This post is funny.
One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering of digits on the numeric keypad.
I don't disagree with you, but my biggest problem with almost all computer keyboards is that they have numeric keypads.
I use a mini keyboard, because I can center the alphabetic keys right in front of the monitor, and I can reach the mouse without stretching my arm. I love it.
Holy crap!
My poor Sun workstation ground to a halt when the load average spiked, as it struggled to render all those horrible animations.
And my eyes! My eyes! Why didn't I insure my eyes when I had the chance?
Anything that is reacheable from our universe is, by definition, part of the universe. The concept of "escape" has no meaning in this context.
Well, we're playing with definitions here. By your definition of "universe," it's still possible to conceive that we could escape from our current "region" of the universe - which is dying - through a wormhole, to another "region" that is not so close to dying.
It just presupposes that maybe the "universe" is much bigger than we currently think, and there's a way to traverse from one "region" to another, and different regions are "dying" at different rates.
Rick Berman said today he's working on a new Trek feature film that will have "a larger scope and budget" than ever.
Did anyone else's heart sink when they read this?
I'm not sure I even understand my own feelings about it... maybe I'm just afraid that "larger scope" means "bigger explosions" or "cooler special effects." More likely the latter, especially in light of "larger budget."
Just replying to myself...
Of course, I just realized that would mostly *replace*, not add to, our current vehicles.
So I guess the article author is still way off base even in this scenario.
Up to now, attempts to make robotic drivers has seen very little success. However, that's just because we try and make them drive on existing roads. If we could equip the road with special markings that the robots can use, and we allow only robotic traffic on those roads, then driving becomes quite a simple problem.
It would be like a middle road (no pun intended) between open roads and rail lines. For transporting freight, it would probably be fantastic. More predictable traffic, no unionized drivers. Of course, it won't be so fantastic for those unionized drivers.
So take all your fourteen-wheelers off the regular highways and put them on these special robot highways. When the safety has been proven, start allowing robotic passenger buses. Then robotic personal vehicles. We could eventually convert the bulk of our highways into robot-only roads.
Now you have your millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines. Unless we get our fuel-cell / electric / atomic cars first.
I would be proud as an American to help Canada to defend its soverignty claims.
I appreciate the sentiment. However, our respective governments must act solely in the interests of their peoples, or be accused of not doing their duty. I think international relations is, unfortunately, a cutthroat arena.
American help would never come without strings attached. I don't say this vindictively; the nature of the world stage reduces us to the lowest common denominator: all national governments must be selfish. Friendly sentiment among Americans for Canada can exert a certain amount of influence on the government, but if the U.S. backs off as a result, it only creates an opening for some other country to make a move.
No doubt I'm being too cynical. Hundreds of millions in aid and debt relief to Southeast Asia is evidence against me. But you'd be naive if you think all of that money is going without strings attached, either.
As a matter of fact, some of the recent high-profile unauthorized incursions into Canadian-claimed territory (high-profile within Canada, anyway) has been U.S. submarines engaging in exercises of some kind. Conservative groups in Canada have started making noise about it. And while I would never ever call myself a conservative, in this case, I agree with them.
Like I said, I appreciate your sentiment. I hope it's shared by most Americans. But Canadian territory is a serious issue to us - and it's a Canadian issue - and we have to deal with it ourselves.
Any attempts to use our waters and resources is a violation of Canadian sovereignty.
International law dictates that, unless Canada makes an effort to assert its sovereignty by, for instance, maintaining settlements, conducting patrols and challenging trespassers, then Canada would lose its right to the territory. And there are currently vast swaths of uninhabited land up there that we don't regularly patrol.
I suspect many people don't realize this. And as a fellow Canadian, I'm quite worried. Just because we make maps that declare it to be a part of Canada, doesn't mean other countries have to agree. And we mustn't get complacent just because we think that friendly countries wouldn't try and steal our territory if they felt they could get away with it. If we want to keep it, we have to work for it.
Emotional purchases, indeed. "Yeah, but this one goes up to eleven!!"
Spirited Away is about greed and gluttony.
Interesting. I'm not sure I completely agree with you, but then, any good film will have multiple valid interpretations. I don't think it's useful to try and argue which one is "correct." So I don't disagree with you, anyways.
even Nausicaa ... is an allegory for the real-life Cold War that was going on at the time, and what would happen if it turned hot. The environment is used in these films as a vehicle to make a point.
Now, this is really interesting, I looked at it the other way around: it seemed to me that the political machinations of human beings ended up being trivial compared to the "anger of mother earth" that was brought to life at the end of the film in the swarming ohmu. I thought the deeper point - the point Nausicaa was trying to make all the time - was that human affairs are nothing compared to our responsibilities in sharing the earth's resources, and not just with each other, but with all the species on planet.
By the end of the film, Chihiro has come to an understanding that the world doesn't revolve around her; everyone basically acts in self-interest, and therein is the value of true friends who will act on your behalf even if it's not in their interest.
She also learns independence. See, it would be one thing if Chihiro merely latched onto the Yubaba as a surrogate mother. But she doesn't. At the end of the film, she confronts even her, in order to free her parents. This is an astounding level of independence if you consider her character at the beginning of the film.
It's a level of maturity that many adults don't achieve. I can't say I'm sure that I have.
The moral in Sen to Chihiro no kamikaukushi ("Spirited Away") is basically "Don't destroy the environment" and "Children should learn manners".
Chihiro, at the beginning of the film, seems somewhat spoiled and incessantly whiney.
By the end, she has had to set her own goals, make her own decisions, accept responsibility, and carry through on a long-term plan. All without the guidance of her parents. It's the process of growing up and leaving the nest. Sorry, but "children should learn manners" just doesn't cover all that.
No, this would hurt GPL because copyright is the mechanism by which you have the right to issue licenses for your code.
I'm pretty sure he meant rediculous
No, it's "ridiculous."
I find this spelling mistake to be similar to the common mistake, "seperate." (It should be "separate.")
Here it may surprise some people that their English spelling can be aided by knowing a different language.
In French, for example, the two "i"s in "ridicule" are pronounced exactly the same. For sure, many English speakers pronounce them the same, too, but some don't, and this is obviously the source of the confusion.
Also, in the French word "séparer," the "a" is clearly pronounced, whereas in English, the "a" degenerates to the schwa sound, so you can't tell what the letter should be.
It's an interesting dilemma. The only really good way to colonize Mars involves terraforming it. But the only way to preserve parts of the Martian surface precludes terraforming it.
You'd be correct if terraforming were just around the corner. But I think the technology, the resources, and the political will won't exist for such a long time that any laws or regulations we make about it now will be totally irrelevant (maybe even forgotten) by the time we are capable of terraforming Mars. My guess would be that we're talking hundreds upon hundreds, maybe even a thousand years.
The cost of building biodomes is such a small fraction of terraforming the whole planet that I can pretty much guarantee this will happen before the latter becomes an option. And I think the Martian colonies will probably even declare independence and make up their own minds about the issue, regardless of what we decide now.
Who knows, the whole notion of the territorial nation-state might even become obsolete in that time.
Try hitting the "Parent" link and you'll see what he's replying to. You probably have "Reparent Highly Rated Comments" turned on in your preferences (under Comments). With a UID as low as 65094, have you never noticed this?
To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these things has happened in the US. Therefore, I submit that it will not, in fact, become law.
Well, the signatory countries have laws too, you know.
Actually, I think the poster merely misused the word "law" slightly; he just meant that, as the article says, the treaty is to become legally binding. Of course, it only applies to the countries that have ratified it.
you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists).
Whoa, wait a minute. I hope there aren't very many journalists with agendas, 'cuz that would make them activists, not journalists.
But I guess that just depends on how cynical you are...
I think the article is absolutely right... but I would put it this way: if 99% of the scientific community accept a theory and 1% does not, then I wouldn't agree that an article that gives both sides equal footing is balanced at all.
The root of the problem is when large and powerful organizations with political interests set themselves up and declare that they are a valid part of the scientific community when they're not. And here, there's no fault with the journalists, who don't have the background to separate legitimate scientific organizations from pseudo-scientific ones.
So they created a computer model, which when run indicated drastic temperature shifts across the globe. And yet they don't know by which mechanism this occurred?
Absolutely, this is possible. It's likely that the climate models use machine learning techniques like neural networks, which is basically like function approximation. It's a gigantic generalized equation, combined with an iterative process that tunes it (or teaches it) to match a set of data, in this case, historical climate data. Once it's "taught," you turn it around and try plugging in new values and see what it predicts as a result.
Unfortunately, you can't ask a neural network why a certain result came out the way it did, because it's still just a giant equation. Human beings have to pick that equation apart to try and understand it... And believe me, this is an almost intractable problem, especially for something as huge as a global climate model.
Great - now I can crash my car even after I've already crashed it.
You could have it crash before it crashes.
You can even crash it at the same time! Oh, the possibilities!
Actually, I guess we've exhausted all the possibilities.
Well, that was fun.
But I still feel so insecure about my humanhood...
Only 20,000 genes?? Aw, man.