"Well, some people 'can't live' without heroin either"
They 'can', it's just not very nice. I say can as I expect suicide rates would go up quite substantially if masses of people weren't self medicating often after trying the legal stuff.
People without those kind of persistant problems (such as people taking opiates for 'fun' or for pain relief) don't seem to have too many problems giving the opiate up for good. (quite a bit of peer reviewed stuff about, esp related to pain relief or things like all the herion addicts coming back from veitnam and getting clean without too many problems themselves)
So there was a risk, what level was that risk? What peer reviewed papers do you have to show that that estimation of risk has any reproducibly measurable value?
boo, did I make you jump? Personally I think they should have taken the opportunity to depopulate a little bit and be more able to meat there CO2 emission commitments and also save a bit on state pensions.
because if they did that there wouldn't be able to bash the government, regulators or whoever they decided to bash for having the planes out the sky, and that wouldn't make good news would it?
Are you using a capitalist model to define poverty or some other kind of model.
For instance there are much higher rates of mental health problems in so called developed countries, that's a strong indicator that there is in-fact a much higher level of poverty in areas where it actually makes your life better, such as happiness.
I believe that western countries are actually significantly poorer (maybe not in capitalist terms) and there;s a lot of evidence to back that up. Our gross contribution to global warming is also increasing poverty around the globe as is our resource hungry lifestyle. A lifestyle in which ownership and having the next best thing is the way in which happiness is achieved, but we don't appear to be doing very well on that front.
so should we not demonstrate that we also have that understanding?
Thus relating to them?
They should be able to identify that the communication between other animals is 'culturally' different from the communication we then send of ourselves.
Maybe they killed off all the other animals on their planet a very long time ago, a little like were doing on our own?
if et calls we should great them with the communication of the other animals on the planet (well some of them),first. Before grating them ourselfs.
this would show them that we can appreciate the communication of other life forms, and even put that communication before the communication of ourselfs.
If we are to communicate we need to demonstrate empathy, since the only thing we know about them is that they can communicate, empathy via appreciation of the communication of other life forms on our own planet may demonstrate we can empathize with them.
This should reduce fear and hostility towards us, and aid in good relations. in respect they may attempt to empathise with us a little more.
I've thrown 666 6 times in a row on three die before. That's the thing about random, there may be a quadtillion to one chance of something happening, but that's still a chance of it happening.
It's also impossible to determine if something is truly random or not, well using statistical techniques. You can use logic to work out what things are random, but I'll save that one for later.
both of your chi-squared sequences could be perfectly random, infact any sequence could be perfectly random. The thing is you can never tell, entropy is immeasurable so to speak.
you obviously don't know anything about randomness.
randomness is random, it's entropy can't be measured (well it can, but the result is meaningless).
your die could have turned up 60 6s in a row and still be perfectly random. It could have rolled 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5,,6 10 times in a row and still be compleatly random.
notice, Random.org and your die have several repeats of 3 in length, the die even repeated 222 twice, the longest repeat you have is 66 and 11. This is because you had the miss-conception that randomness means that there's no 'sequences' or very few sequences when infact randomness often has lots of clusters and so as a result your number sequence was far from random because it was determined by you understanding of what random is.
"OK. The way to distinguish real random sequences from human-generated ones is to look for a place on the list where there are at least six heads or tails entries in a row. Almost everyone who tries to fake the tosses fails to include a run of such length, yet it is almost a statistical certainty that it will occur in a sufficiently large number of tosses. Using 200 flips, roughly 98% of the entries should have such a sequence of at least six consecutive heads or tails."
What if someone did understand intelligence and consciousness?
I will say it's not so much speed that defines intelligence but the number of associations in a context / concept that can be analyzed and followed and 'remembered' at once.
the human brain is very slow when compared to a computer, the main trick to intelligence (apart from the application of logic) is in scaled / linear / transform association between concepts. (context is just a temporary/ mutable form of a concept)
consciousness is primarily a combination of context, objective (which is like a context), and concentration (which is derived via the application of objective to the context transversing association between concepts). That may not be fully clear to you because you experience emotions and associate emotions with concepts and emotions essentially 'override' the logical application of objective to the context, since emotions are hard wired feelings left over from the evolutionary process. There kind of evolutions attempt at intelligence, the thing that marks us apart from animals is that we can think logically and not just emotionally (that's not quite correct, other animals do have some amount of logical thinking, mass association is really the other bit that marks us apart (we can associate anything with anything primarily down to memory, we have a great ability to remember past contexts and form associations and concepts between them).
I can tell you how you, and infact all humans think. How? Well because I know how I think. I bet you don't believe me, because I bet you don't know how you think, or for that matter I bet that no one reading slashdot knows how they think.
The way how I think, apply logic and conceptualize is relatively straight forward. I've also been programming for the best part of 25 years and the only nut I have left to crack should be doable using wavelets or some other kind of spectrum analysis. Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about wavelets (or at least the mathematics) and it's quite a large field, so I'm starting off using existing open source audio / signal analysis software.
Anyhow, if I had resources I could crack it within 9 months, cracked to the extent that I could have super human AI on consumer hardware (well a very small cluster).
The reason I know how I think is because I have a possibly unique condition (somewhat like aspergers) in that I hardly experience emotions and don't experience free will. (I bet no one reading slashdot doesn't experience free will, even if they don't believe in it (and don't believe in as some people `usually mathamiticians` call it 'choice')
So go on ask me, how do you think? (I'll give you an overview, obviously I don't want to give away all of my/your secrets)
I've also got another trick up my sleave that you won't believe either, especially as it's considered impossible. But I'll save that one for later, all I'll say is that it starts off with nothing, and then random and the application of higher order logics.
" noticed was their tendency to keep copying data from one data structure to another instead of using it in place"
hmm.... maybe they just read the python tutorial on the python website.
It is not safe to modify the sequence being iterated over in the loop (this can only happen for mutable sequence types, such as lists). If you need to modify the list you are iterating over (for example, to duplicate selected items) you must iterate over a copy. The slice notation makes this particularly convenient: >>> for x in a[:]: # make a slice copy of the entire list... if len(x) > 6: a.insert(0, x)... >>> a
far better solution would be to loop over a and build a list of thins you wanted to insert then loop over the things you wanted to insert list and modify a.
immutable types are really for beginners and only case problems for people who actually can write code.
First, Start by actually patching your machines and implementing some very basic security stuff..
You know, the kind of stuff that a script kiddie, with aspergers, searching for evidence of UFO's won't be able to get passed.
Or if you can't even manage to do that, or find out which systems you need to do it to, then when he finally get's extrodited at your request, instead of humiliating yourself further by giving him a trial and locking him up for the rest of his life. Give him a computer, let him download a few hacking tools of the internet, get him to press the GO button and write down a list of everything that gets hacked into.
no he's saying that he's been listening to the governments bullshit for a very long time and got used to it, so it doesn't matter if he wares a tin foil hat or an aliminum foil hat because he already immune where as you are not and will be poisened by the government whichever you choose.
It would be quite a big step for a newspaper like the guardian that prides it's self on contect to reduce all it's stories down to something that would be worthy of the sun.
i forgot to add that the money should be distributed based on how many downloads their are, so independent people can make money off of the service too without having to go through a record lable.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, some people 'can't live' without heroin either"
They 'can', it's just not very nice. I say can as I expect suicide rates would go up quite substantially if masses of people weren't self medicating often after trying the legal stuff.
People without those kind of persistant problems (such as people taking opiates for 'fun' or for pain relief) don't seem to have too many problems giving the opiate up for good. (quite a bit of peer reviewed stuff about, esp related to pain relief or things like all the herion addicts coming back from veitnam and getting clean without too many problems themselves)
So there was a risk, what level was that risk?
What peer reviewed papers do you have to show that that estimation of risk has any reproducibly measurable value?
boo, did I make you jump? Personally I think they should have taken the opportunity to depopulate a little bit and be more able to meat there CO2 emission commitments and also save a bit on state pensions.
because if they did that there wouldn't be able to bash the government, regulators or whoever they decided to bash for having the planes out the sky, and that wouldn't make good news would it?
Are you using a capitalist model to define poverty or some other kind of model.
For instance there are much higher rates of mental health problems in so called developed countries, that's a strong indicator that there is in-fact a much higher level of poverty in areas where it actually makes your life better, such as happiness.
I believe that western countries are actually significantly poorer (maybe not in capitalist terms) and there;s a lot of evidence to back that up. Our gross contribution to global warming is also increasing poverty around the globe as is our resource hungry lifestyle. A lifestyle in which ownership and having the next best thing is the way in which happiness is achieved, but we don't appear to be doing very well on that front.
I find all of you irrational 'neurotypicals' horrifying.
Not only do I have no ratial bias, I have no bias whatsoever and see no difference say between a human and the sound of a knatts fart.
so should we not demonstrate that we also have that understanding?
Thus relating to them?
They should be able to identify that the communication between other animals is 'culturally' different from the communication we then send of ourselves.
Maybe they killed off all the other animals on their planet a very long time ago, a little like were doing on our own?
I'm not sure the question is what should be said, but who should say it.
for those of you who aren't autistic spectrum.
a smile make you appear friendly, being friendly is appreciating and empathizing.
a smile show this because it induces a sense of warmth and pleasure in someone else.
it demonstrates appreciation though empathy.
you may or may not have relised that (EDIII seemed to over look it), but try it next time your on a date, or going for a job.
wouldn't you smile before a good firm handshake and slap on the back.
if et calls we should great them with the communication of the other animals on the planet (well some of them),first. Before grating them ourselfs.
this would show them that we can appreciate the communication of other life forms, and even put that communication before the communication of ourselfs.
If we are to communicate we need to demonstrate empathy, since the only thing we know about them is that they can communicate, empathy via appreciation of the communication of other life forms on our own planet may demonstrate we can empathize with them.
This should reduce fear and hostility towards us, and aid in good relations. in respect they may attempt to empathise with us a little more.
I've thrown 666 6 times in a row on three die before. That's the thing about random, there may be a quadtillion to one chance of something happening, but that's still a chance of it happening.
It's also impossible to determine if something is truly random or not, well using statistical techniques. You can use logic to work out what things are random, but I'll save that one for later.
who's to say they aren't using some other method to produce the list?
both of your chi-squared sequences could be perfectly random, infact any sequence could be perfectly random. The thing is you can never tell, entropy is immeasurable so to speak.
you obviously don't know anything about randomness.
randomness is random, it's entropy can't be measured (well it can, but the result is meaningless).
your die could have turned up 60 6s in a row and still be perfectly random. It could have rolled 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5, ,6 10 times in a row and still be compleatly random.
notice, Random.org and your die have several repeats of 3 in length, the die even repeated 222 twice, the longest repeat you have is 66 and 11. This is because you had the miss-conception that randomness means that there's no 'sequences' or very few sequences when infact randomness often has lots of clusters and so as a result your number sequence was far from random because it was determined by you understanding of what random is.
Huh, insitefull?
Sark666 can't pick a random number either, he just thinks he can.
Don't believe me, it's easy to tell a list of 'random' numbers generated by a human from a real list of random number.
"OK. The way to distinguish real random sequences from human-generated ones is to look for a place on the list where there are at least six heads or tails entries in a row. Almost everyone who tries to fake the tosses fails to include a run of such length, yet it is almost a statistical certainty that it will occur in a sufficiently large number of tosses. Using 200 flips, roughly 98% of the entries should have such a sequence of at least six consecutive heads or tails."
goggled distinguishing "human generated" random number list from real random number
What if someone did understand intelligence and consciousness?
I will say it's not so much speed that defines intelligence but the number of associations in a context / concept that can be analyzed and followed and 'remembered' at once.
the human brain is very slow when compared to a computer, the main trick to intelligence (apart from the application of logic) is in scaled / linear / transform association between concepts. (context is just a temporary/ mutable form of a concept)
consciousness is primarily a combination of context, objective (which is like a context), and concentration (which is derived via the application of objective to the context transversing association between concepts). That may not be fully clear to you because you experience emotions and associate emotions with concepts and emotions essentially 'override' the logical application of objective to the context, since emotions are hard wired feelings left over from the evolutionary process. There kind of evolutions attempt at intelligence, the thing that marks us apart from animals is that we can think logically and not just emotionally (that's not quite correct, other animals do have some amount of logical thinking, mass association is really the other bit that marks us apart (we can associate anything with anything primarily down to memory, we have a great ability to remember past contexts and form associations and concepts between them).
I can tell you how you, and infact all humans think. How? Well because I know how I think. I bet you don't believe me, because I bet you don't know how you think, or for that matter I bet that no one reading slashdot knows how they think.
The way how I think, apply logic and conceptualize is relatively straight forward. I've also been programming for the best part of 25 years and the only nut I have left to crack should be doable using wavelets or some other kind of spectrum analysis. Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about wavelets (or at least the mathematics) and it's quite a large field, so I'm starting off using existing open source audio / signal analysis software.
Anyhow, if I had resources I could crack it within 9 months, cracked to the extent that I could have super human AI on consumer hardware (well a very small cluster).
The reason I know how I think is because I have a possibly unique condition (somewhat like aspergers) in that I hardly experience emotions and don't experience free will. (I bet no one reading slashdot doesn't experience free will, even if they don't believe in it (and don't believe in as some people `usually mathamiticians` call it 'choice')
So go on ask me, how do you think? (I'll give you an overview, obviously I don't want to give away all of my/your secrets)
I've also got another trick up my sleave that you won't believe either, especially as it's considered impossible. But I'll save that one for later, all I'll say is that it starts off with nothing, and then random and the application of higher order logics.
" noticed was their tendency to keep copying data from one data structure to another instead of using it in place"
hmm.... maybe they just read the python tutorial on the python website.
It is not safe to modify the sequence being iterated over in the loop (this can only happen for mutable sequence types, such as lists). If you need to modify the list you are iterating over (for example, to duplicate selected items) you must iterate over a copy. The slice notation makes this particularly convenient: ... if len(x) > 6: a.insert(0, x) ...
>>> for x in a[:]: # make a slice copy of the entire list
>>> a
far better solution would be to loop over a and build a list of thins you wanted to insert then loop over the things you wanted to insert list and modify a.
immutable types are really for beginners and only case problems for people who actually can write code.
First,
Start by actually patching your machines and implementing some very basic security stuff..
You know, the kind of stuff that a script kiddie, with aspergers, searching for evidence of UFO's won't be able to get passed.
Or if you can't even manage to do that, or find out which systems you need to do it to, then when he finally get's extrodited at your request, instead of humiliating yourself further by giving him a trial and locking him up for the rest of his life. Give him a computer, let him download a few hacking tools of the internet, get him to press the GO button and write down a list of everything that gets hacked into.
no he's saying that he's been listening to the governments bullshit for a very long time and got used to it, so it doesn't matter if he wares a tin foil hat or an aliminum foil hat because he already immune where as you are not and will be poisened by the government whichever you choose.
what Stallman fails to notice is that if there were no copyright law there would be no need to the gpl
It would be quite a big step for a newspaper like the guardian that prides it's self on contect to reduce all it's stories down to something that would be worthy of the sun.
still need music videos, promotions etc... the record companies will still have a place they will just not be needed.
so add 1% to income tax so everyone pays and all digital music becomes free.
i forgot to add that the money should be distributed based on how many downloads their are, so independent people can make money off of the service too without having to go through a record lable.