> what keeps them from accidentally shooting down some randomly passing > communications satellite while they're cutting through an arbitrarily-sized > rock?
A modicum of planning, coupled with an extremeley low probability of disturbing anything other than what's being aimed at.
> So you'd need one hell of a transmission with like 100 different gear > settings to get you a range of speeds from, say, 0 to 100. Transmissions > in ICE cars only have 5 or 6.
Not all cars. CVT == continuously variable transmission... already in today's production cars... Honda's Civic HX, and their hybrid too.
> "The very nature of road cars is that their speed changes all the time, so this > design would be no good for road vehicles."
TF author is retarded, then. ICEs have the same problem. It's solved with a little doohickey called a transmission (as has already been hinted at... just thought I'd make it crystal clear).
Don't believe everything you read;)
Re:don't forget about darwinist programming
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 1
For me, substitute StarCrack and loveless sex with a cold heartless shrew... otherwise, I hear ya.
From a certain perspective, science is all about approximation. There is not really any proof, only disproof.
Science is that it consists, ultimately, of testable hypotheses. Observations either allow a hypothesis to survive, or disprove it altogether. There is no guarantee that any hypothesis will not be disproven by some future observation.
Re:don't forget about darwinist programming
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Why bother with GAs. They just special cases of baysian inference.
Classify GAs however you want - we bother with them because they are useful in finding solutions.
This is like saying "why bother with the Fourier Series - it's just a special case of the Fourier Transform." Feh.
Re:don't forget about darwinist programming
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 1
> But they aren't exactly up to par with the other Darwinist examples > GA's are unreliable in the consistent repeatability of their answers:(
What specifically are you talking about? Of course the solutions aren't neccessarily repeatable, because it's a heuristic that is deliberately randomly seeded. GAs are best for problems that tend to have more than one answer.
Be careful... R. Kelly has become accustomed to the buzzing of the flies circling his nether-regions, and may grow suspicious when they fall silent at the hand of your camera. Though the footage he tends to provide is probably worth the risk.
And sharing code! The fact that the kernel-included device driver code is open should make it fairly easy for Solaris x86 to get back up to speed, if the desire is there.
Oops. I thought you might have felt bad for calling the GP an idiot. Now I see that you actually believe that his clarification was a reward for your shrill, rude response.
It's entirely possible, you know, that he replied to you in spite of your ill temper. Here's some advice: apply some basic manners when you post, and your ideas will be more potable. The you won't need to name-call or use bold face every time you need to say something.
At the bottom of the CIA page is says "say no to drugs." If my kid has to say no to drugs, then why have my tax dollars gone to hacking the hell out of the Columbian rain forest? I thought we were going to get CHEAPER blow from that, cheaper opium from Afghanistan, cheaper flying saucers from Mars, and cheaper oil from Iraq? I'm starting to thing the CIA's motives are not as selfish and sinister as we were led to believe, and frankly, that pisses me off. As a great patriot once said: Did we lose a war? That's not America; that's not even Mexico.
Re:This is as much about philosophy than science..
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
> Today there is a stronger argument for Determinism: just put all the facts in > a big computer and you can predict any outcome (or the odds of possible > outcomes, with a quantum approach).
The same laws that make the quantum computing heuristic possible are a great argument against determinism a la reductionism. Predictability has well-defined limits in terms of position and state once you arrive at a quantum scale.
> which is more complex, the group or a single person? Or is there a threshold
What if it's like quantum uncertainty - the more you have a localized self, the less you see of the social hierarchy. Self determination is high, social determination is low. The more you give your self up to other roles, the less your concept of self is defined, but your knowledge of the social hierarchy is greater. Social determination is high, self determination is low.
Re:A different kind of emergence
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
> But it isn't literally unpredictable--perfect knowledge and unlimited > processing power would give you the ability to predict it perfectly--it's > just unpredictable from any normal human perspective.
Searle argues for the something that straddles what you're calling strong and weak emergence, and calls them weak and strong AI, respectively. Dennett is a much firmer opponent of higher level behavior "overriding normal physics," as this is equivalent to old-fashioned Descartian dualism and too distasteful with someone with someone with as mechanical a disposition as he.
This is as much about philosophy than science...
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...but interesting, nonetheless. For two viewpoints that are more or less opposing, read Daniel Dennett and John Searle - the latter of whom is a latter-day dualist who talks a lot about emergence, aka emergent properties. Dennett thinks machines will be able to think, Searle doubts it.
Robotic CD changer. Some music hack with supercollider.
> rims
Car rims are milled with programmable machines.
Seriously, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with interests in these things versus interest in more traditional gateways into computer science, e.g. computers as a hobby. In either case, you have two basic kinds of people - those with a passing interest, who are never motivated to move beyond tinkering, and those who get in deep and/or grasp the broad applicability of the principles and methods employed.
My desk is actually in an abandoned SGI regional office. They remodeled the suite to match the aesthetic of the machines - rounded, "stylized," purple, extra features that serve no functional purpose. I also have a pile of dead octanes. Those rounded, purple front covers never did seem to work properly. We have 60+ people working in an office SGI used for as little as 4.
I think the moral of the SGI story is self-evident. Times change. When cash is flowing, everything's beautiful. When shit's tight, you ditch the fluff and do what it takes to wring out what's left, even if that means ditching a great proprietary architecture and OS, and sublimating into an afterimage of what you were. Hey, it's marginally better than an Enron-like collapse. SGI old-timers may have seen their stock dwindle into nothing, but at least they still have their sabbaticals. Mmmmm, sabbatical.
The problem with this is that you have to accept the message in order to have processed it - game over, your mail exchanger is talking, so your still on the spammer's list.
> They have to use an external verification method to link a certain > public key to you.
Yes, yes, the contemporary real-world paradigm is that we need to know which physical person belongs to a public key, but my original point is that there are cases where this is not true (hence the "strictly" qualifier), and the public key becomes the identity. In this case, you do not need to worry about the remailer, the DNS, the pseudonym, or anything else other than the signature and your list of public keys (barring the compromise of the source private key, but that's a separate issue).
> People listening to you need a reliable authentication that they are > listening to the right "wwest4" in your case, not someone imposturing you.
They do - the public key itself is the unique identifier, not the pseudonym. If the public key doesn't verify the sig, then the message is signed with a different private key - end of story.
Or only allow incoming mail that's signed. This won't prevent spam, but it will complicate the spammers' lives a bit, at least for a while.
Re:It's the future I guess
on
The Other VoIP
·
· Score: 1
> I suspect it is exactly because of the reason you stated.
There is another reason: the quality is typically so poor, that the added benefit is not worth the expense/hassle of the extra equipment. As latency gets lower and bandwidth gets higher, video phones will become much more useful for those times when you do need them, and the problem you and gp mentioned is easily solved with the equivalent of a mute button for video.
> I'm banging a fat chick at the moment and I love it. She's a great girl.
You're banging her right this second? Wow, you've got some dexterity going on.
> Don't stick your dick in it unless you really want it (emphasis mine).
You forgot the other layer to your pregnancy "security" model - being totally chauvinistic. No woman with any self respect, skinny or fat, is going to put up with you if that's what's really going on up in your skull. So that leaves you with only women with no self respect. And those are the kind you can bully into going to the abortion clinic as a stopgap measure! Wow, you really are all set. Good luck to you, not that you need it with all of that knowledge you're dropping.
Slashdot Mirror
> what keeps them from accidentally shooting down some randomly passing
> communications satellite while they're cutting through an arbitrarily-sized
> rock?
A modicum of planning, coupled with an extremeley low probability of disturbing anything other than what's being aimed at.
> So you'd need one hell of a transmission with like 100 different gear
> settings to get you a range of speeds from, say, 0 to 100. Transmissions
> in ICE cars only have 5 or 6.
Not all cars. CVT == continuously variable transmission... already in today's production cars... Honda's Civic HX, and their hybrid too.
> "The very nature of road cars is that their speed changes all the time, so this > design would be no good for road vehicles."
;)
TF author is retarded, then. ICEs have the same problem. It's solved with a little doohickey called a transmission (as has already been hinted at... just thought I'd make it crystal clear).
Don't believe everything you read
For me, substitute StarCrack and loveless sex with a cold heartless shrew... otherwise, I hear ya.
From a certain perspective, science is all about approximation. There is not really any proof, only disproof.
Science is that it consists, ultimately, of testable hypotheses. Observations either allow a hypothesis to survive, or disprove it altogether. There is no guarantee that any hypothesis will not be disproven by some future observation.
> Why bother with GAs. They just special cases of baysian inference.
Classify GAs however you want - we bother with them because they are useful in finding solutions.
This is like saying "why bother with the Fourier Series - it's just a special case of the Fourier Transform." Feh.
> But they aren't exactly up to par with the other Darwinist examples :(
> GA's are unreliable in the consistent repeatability of their answers
What specifically are you talking about? Of course the solutions aren't neccessarily repeatable, because it's a heuristic that is deliberately randomly seeded. GAs are best for problems that tend to have more than one answer.
Be careful... R. Kelly has become accustomed to the buzzing of the flies circling his nether-regions, and may grow suspicious when they fall silent at the hand of your camera. Though the footage he tends to provide is probably worth the risk.
> all competing against each other
And sharing code! The fact that the kernel-included device driver code is open should make it fairly easy for Solaris x86 to get back up to speed, if the desire is there.
Oops. I thought you might have felt bad for calling the GP an idiot. Now I see that you actually believe that his clarification was a reward for your shrill, rude response.
It's entirely possible, you know, that he replied to you in spite of your ill temper. Here's some advice: apply some basic manners when you post, and your ideas will be more potable. The you won't need to name-call or use bold face every time you need to say something.
Is that what passes for an apology these days?
Score: -1, No Shame
At the bottom of the CIA page is says "say no to drugs." If my kid has to say no to drugs, then why have my tax dollars gone to hacking the hell out of the Columbian rain forest? I thought we were going to get CHEAPER blow from that, cheaper opium from Afghanistan, cheaper flying saucers from Mars, and cheaper oil from Iraq? I'm starting to thing the CIA's motives are not as selfish and sinister as we were led to believe, and frankly, that pisses me off. As a great patriot once said: Did we lose a war? That's not America; that's not even Mexico.
> Today there is a stronger argument for Determinism: just put all the facts in
> a big computer and you can predict any outcome (or the odds of possible
> outcomes, with a quantum approach).
The same laws that make the quantum computing heuristic possible are a great argument against determinism a la reductionism. Predictability has well-defined limits in terms of position and state once you arrive at a quantum scale.
> which is more complex, the group or a single person? Or is there a threshold
What if it's like quantum uncertainty - the more you have a localized self, the less you see of the social hierarchy. Self determination is high, social determination is low. The more you give your self up to other roles, the less your concept of self is defined, but your knowledge of the social hierarchy is greater. Social determination is high, self determination is low.
> But it isn't literally unpredictable--perfect knowledge and unlimited
> processing power would give you the ability to predict it perfectly--it's
> just unpredictable from any normal human perspective.
Searle argues for the something that straddles what you're calling strong and weak emergence, and calls them weak and strong AI, respectively. Dennett is a much firmer opponent of higher level behavior "overriding normal physics," as this is equivalent to old-fashioned Descartian dualism and too distasteful with someone with someone with as mechanical a disposition as he.
...but interesting, nonetheless. For two viewpoints that are more or less opposing, read Daniel Dennett and John Searle - the latter of whom is a latter-day dualist who talks a lot about emergence, aka emergent properties. Dennett thinks machines will be able to think, Searle doubts it.
> car stereo
Robotic CD changer. Some music hack with supercollider.
> rims
Car rims are milled with programmable machines.
Seriously, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with interests in these things versus interest in more traditional gateways into computer science, e.g. computers as a hobby. In either case, you have two basic kinds of people - those with a passing interest, who are never motivated to move beyond tinkering, and those who get in deep and/or grasp the broad applicability of the principles and methods employed.
Bite your head off, man.
My desk is actually in an abandoned SGI regional office. They remodeled the suite to match the aesthetic of the machines - rounded, "stylized," purple, extra features that serve no functional purpose. I also have a pile of dead octanes. Those rounded, purple front covers never did seem to work properly. We have 60+ people working in an office SGI used for as little as 4.
I think the moral of the SGI story is self-evident. Times change. When cash is flowing, everything's beautiful. When shit's tight, you ditch the fluff and do what it takes to wring out what's left, even if that means ditching a great proprietary architecture and OS, and sublimating into an afterimage of what you were. Hey, it's marginally better than an Enron-like collapse. SGI old-timers may have seen their stock dwindle into nothing, but at least they still have their sabbaticals. Mmmmm, sabbatical.
The problem with this is that you have to accept the message in order to have processed it - game over, your mail exchanger is talking, so your still on the spammer's list.
> They have to use an external verification method to link a certain
> public key to you.
Yes, yes, the contemporary real-world paradigm is that we need to know which physical person belongs to a public key, but my original point is that there are cases where this is not true (hence the "strictly" qualifier), and the public key becomes the identity. In this case, you do not need to worry about the remailer, the DNS, the pseudonym, or anything else other than the signature and your list of public keys (barring the compromise of the source private key, but that's a separate issue).
> People listening to you need a reliable authentication that they are
> listening to the right "wwest4" in your case, not someone imposturing you.
They do - the public key itself is the unique identifier, not the pseudonym. If the public key doesn't verify the sig, then the message is signed with a different private key - end of story.
> Encryption without authentication is useless.
That's not strictly true. What if you don't care who is listening? E.g. Blacknet.
> Or will spam endure as it always has done... ;/
Or only allow incoming mail that's signed. This won't prevent spam, but it will complicate the spammers' lives a bit, at least for a while.
> I suspect it is exactly because of the reason you stated.
There is another reason: the quality is typically so poor, that the added benefit is not worth the expense/hassle of the extra equipment. As latency gets lower and bandwidth gets higher, video phones will become much more useful for those times when you do need them, and the problem you and gp mentioned is easily solved with the equivalent of a mute button for video.
> I'm banging a fat chick at the moment and I love it. She's a great girl.
You're banging her right this second? Wow, you've got some dexterity going on.
> Don't stick your dick in it unless you really want it (emphasis mine).
You forgot the other layer to your pregnancy "security" model - being totally chauvinistic. No woman with any self respect, skinny or fat, is going to put up with you if that's what's really going on up in your skull. So that leaves you with only women with no self respect. And those are the kind you can bully into going to the abortion clinic as a stopgap measure! Wow, you really are all set. Good luck to you, not that you need it with all of that knowledge you're dropping.