Most people should be so lucky as to have your "problem". Programming is easy to learn. People who learn to program and learn no theory should not be computer scientists and should not get a degree in computer science. People who learn the theory should be able to easily pick up an arbitrary programming language and produce sound code in it.
The real problem with theory-free code monkeys is that they rarely actually understand what they're doing, and they rarely know a solid approach to a given problem. They can churn out lines of code that perform simple, straightforward tasks. Not very useful.
If I remember BitTorrent correctly, you need 64 bits (8 bytes) for offset within file. While you could use local machine port somehow to identify the torrent, you probably shouldn't. However, you're unlikely to need more than two bytes for that (more realistically, one). That's 10 bytes, compared to the 12-byte TCP overhead.
BitTorrent frequently wastes more bandwidth in double-requested blocks and hashfails than that.
Further, the guys at IETF are not tasked with coming up with optimal protocols for specific applications. They're not necessarily even tasked with coming up with better versions of TCP. There are tons of things they have come up with that improvements on what we use now, for that matter, that haven't been picked up by the Internet at large.
The expertise of the IETF members really has no bearing on this matter. If you were trying to actually recreate TCP (i.e., a general-purpose protocol), and the IETF said that theirs is better -- they're probably right. That's not what's going on here.
They're presumably using the information-theoretic definition of entropy, which is equivalent to but more general than the thermodynamic definition of entropy.
A layman's interpretation of entropy is that it's a measure of how many different rearrangements of the same components would be considered the same result. A forest, at a large scale, has high entropy -- a rearrangement of the trees results in the same thing, a forest. The bricks of a building, on the other hand, can be rearranged in relatively few ways and still result in a building.
There are, however, systems that prefer low-entropy states. Life, not just intelligent, produces lower-entropy systems.
Oh, come on. Read the patent. It's for an apparatus for splitting the bill. It should be quite clear what the actual invention is, provided you don't rely on a Slashdot summary to properly summarize a patent.
Damn, now I've got to go look up the appropriate episodes of "The F Word".
Electric shock is used for turkeys, pigs, lambs, and cattle. The compressed-air bolt is also popular for cattle. No idea which is more popular.
I don't think there's a difference, industrially, between decapitating the turkey and slitting its throat, but birds can often be purchased with the head still attached.
The one I can't stand is people who claim that "natural is better" and then turn around and talk about vegetarianism.
There's plenty of room to complain about animal cruelty, but I don't agree that eating animals is necessarily cruel. (It seems that genetically, being desired by humans is practically a Darwinian trump card.) But then, I only eat the free-range organic non-cruel stuff -- it's what's available locally, and it's much tastier than grocery-store meat.
Should've ordered 6 near the beginning; the rest are a logical path, that really terminated with 5.
Since we are animals, we strictly require the consumption of other living organisms for survival. You'd have to be awfully extremist to contend that this is unethical -- it's true for all animals. Today, we are capable of subsisting only on plants, though some vitamins and amino acids are a little tricky to get. It is an arbitrary ethical line, though, what organisms we will and will not eat. It's agreed that plants are acceptable and humans are not. Beyond that, it's a fairly arbitrary choice, along with "to what extent are we willing to cause other creatures pain and misfortune?"
Electric shock to the head. Knocks them unconscious, at which point you hang them upside down and cut the throat to drain the blood (and kill them). Same way cattle are killed.
I realize it's considered terribly clever on Slashdot to deride every patent as "obvious", but it would be nice if people realized that the title of the patent does not indicate what the patent covers, but only the topic of the patent. Hence, a patent for making sandwiches does not cover all possible means of making sandwiches, but only a particular procedure having something to do with the making of sandwiches. What the patent *actually covers* is in the claims.
Fad. Water in most areas of the U.S. is potable. In some areas, it is not, but people in these areas usually purchase drinking water in large jugs, not bottles that are one gallon or less.
I'm not sure I understand your reply. Did you read the parent post? I was just explaining that their signal is I(E). The wording of the summary was confusing some people.
You are correct, though -- it's highly unlikely they'd be published in Nature without having a statistically significant deviation from background. They'd at the very least need to have found a real source, and they'd have to have a good argument that that source is dark matter.
Your claim of extremes, taken to its logical conclusion, supposes that the only choices are anarchy and totalitarianism. I suggest that it's clear that intermediate states are both possible and maintainable.
It's all about drawing a line at a particular point. Truly reasonable measures should be allowed, and overextending them can be disallowed.
Incidentally, the analogy -- boiling frogs by slowly warming the water -- also doesn't work. I suppose by that token, it's actually a very good analogy.
You have a background intensity that is a function of energy, B(E).
Signal intensity is also a function of energy, S(E).
The observed intensity I(E) is B(E) + S(E). The signal portion (observed intensity above background level) peaks at E = 650 GeV. At 800 GeV (and, one would assume, higher), the signal is small enough that the observed intensity is adequately explained only by background.
An expanding space embedded in a higher-dimensional space, however, does not. I prefer the following analogy:
Imagine the stars are dots drawn on a surface of a balloon. The universe is the two-dimensional surface. As the three-dimensional balloon expands, all of the points in the "universe" appear to receding from one another. Yet there is no way to agree upon a "center".
If you know enough to provide that answer, you know enough not to use the word "could" in the manner you did. A computer could do as you described with only a Turing machine. Whether or not it's the most efficient approach.
No, he's saying that if humans possess a given property, than an arbitrary other thing *could* possess that property as well -- not that they necessarily do.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people should be so lucky as to have your "problem". Programming is easy to learn. People who learn to program and learn no theory should not be computer scientists and should not get a degree in computer science. People who learn the theory should be able to easily pick up an arbitrary programming language and produce sound code in it.
The real problem with theory-free code monkeys is that they rarely actually understand what they're doing, and they rarely know a solid approach to a given problem. They can churn out lines of code that perform simple, straightforward tasks. Not very useful.
If I remember BitTorrent correctly, you need 64 bits (8 bytes) for offset within file. While you could use local machine port somehow to identify the torrent, you probably shouldn't. However, you're unlikely to need more than two bytes for that (more realistically, one). That's 10 bytes, compared to the 12-byte TCP overhead.
BitTorrent frequently wastes more bandwidth in double-requested blocks and hashfails than that.
Further, the guys at IETF are not tasked with coming up with optimal protocols for specific applications. They're not necessarily even tasked with coming up with better versions of TCP. There are tons of things they have come up with that improvements on what we use now, for that matter, that haven't been picked up by the Internet at large.
The expertise of the IETF members really has no bearing on this matter. If you were trying to actually recreate TCP (i.e., a general-purpose protocol), and the IETF said that theirs is better -- they're probably right. That's not what's going on here.
They're presumably using the information-theoretic definition of entropy, which is equivalent to but more general than the thermodynamic definition of entropy.
A layman's interpretation of entropy is that it's a measure of how many different rearrangements of the same components would be considered the same result. A forest, at a large scale, has high entropy -- a rearrangement of the trees results in the same thing, a forest. The bricks of a building, on the other hand, can be rearranged in relatively few ways and still result in a building.
There are, however, systems that prefer low-entropy states. Life, not just intelligent, produces lower-entropy systems.
Oh, come on. Read the patent. It's for an apparatus for splitting the bill. It should be quite clear what the actual invention is, provided you don't rely on a Slashdot summary to properly summarize a patent.
I didn't say you can't deride it. I said that it's not a patent on making sandwiches.
If there's no physical or psychological dependence, they're not addicted. Turning to games for social reasons doesn't constitute addiction.
Damn, now I've got to go look up the appropriate episodes of "The F Word".
Electric shock is used for turkeys, pigs, lambs, and cattle. The compressed-air bolt is also popular for cattle. No idea which is more popular.
I don't think there's a difference, industrially, between decapitating the turkey and slitting its throat, but birds can often be purchased with the head still attached.
The one I can't stand is people who claim that "natural is better" and then turn around and talk about vegetarianism.
There's plenty of room to complain about animal cruelty, but I don't agree that eating animals is necessarily cruel. (It seems that genetically, being desired by humans is practically a Darwinian trump card.) But then, I only eat the free-range organic non-cruel stuff -- it's what's available locally, and it's much tastier than grocery-store meat.
Should've ordered 6 near the beginning; the rest are a logical path, that really terminated with 5.
Since we are animals, we strictly require the consumption of other living organisms for survival. You'd have to be awfully extremist to contend that this is unethical -- it's true for all animals. Today, we are capable of subsisting only on plants, though some vitamins and amino acids are a little tricky to get. It is an arbitrary ethical line, though, what organisms we will and will not eat. It's agreed that plants are acceptable and humans are not. Beyond that, it's a fairly arbitrary choice, along with "to what extent are we willing to cause other creatures pain and misfortune?"
Perhaps we just don't think that killing animals is necessarily cruel and/or inhumane.
Electric shock to the head. Knocks them unconscious, at which point you hang them upside down and cut the throat to drain the blood (and kill them). Same way cattle are killed.
I realize it's considered terribly clever on Slashdot to deride every patent as "obvious", but it would be nice if people realized that the title of the patent does not indicate what the patent covers, but only the topic of the patent. Hence, a patent for making sandwiches does not cover all possible means of making sandwiches, but only a particular procedure having something to do with the making of sandwiches. What the patent *actually covers* is in the claims.
Fad. Water in most areas of the U.S. is potable. In some areas, it is not, but people in these areas usually purchase drinking water in large jugs, not bottles that are one gallon or less.
Correct. That's what the article is saying -- it peaks at 650 GeV, and by 800 GeV is indistinguishable from background.
I'm not sure I understand your reply. Did you read the parent post? I was just explaining that their signal is I(E). The wording of the summary was confusing some people.
You are correct, though -- it's highly unlikely they'd be published in Nature without having a statistically significant deviation from background. They'd at the very least need to have found a real source, and they'd have to have a good argument that that source is dark matter.
I think I've seen you make this comment before.
As before, this radiation is not solely produced by charged particles.
Your claim of extremes, taken to its logical conclusion, supposes that the only choices are anarchy and totalitarianism. I suggest that it's clear that intermediate states are both possible and maintainable.
It's all about drawing a line at a particular point. Truly reasonable measures should be allowed, and overextending them can be disallowed.
Incidentally, the analogy -- boiling frogs by slowly warming the water -- also doesn't work. I suppose by that token, it's actually a very good analogy.
If you find that guy, please to be nominating him for President. Thanks.
You have a background intensity that is a function of energy, B(E).
Signal intensity is also a function of energy, S(E).
The observed intensity I(E) is B(E) + S(E). The signal portion (observed intensity above background level) peaks at E = 650 GeV. At 800 GeV (and, one would assume, higher), the signal is small enough that the observed intensity is adequately explained only by background.
The 3d object is bounded and has a center, but the 2d "universe" is unbounded (though of finite size) and has no center.
It's a hypothetical balloon that has no hole in it. :-)
Of course, a loaf of bread does have a center.
An expanding space embedded in a higher-dimensional space, however, does not. I prefer the following analogy:
Imagine the stars are dots drawn on a surface of a balloon. The universe is the two-dimensional surface. As the three-dimensional balloon expands, all of the points in the "universe" appear to receding from one another. Yet there is no way to agree upon a "center".
If you know enough to provide that answer, you know enough not to use the word "could" in the manner you did. A computer could do as you described with only a Turing machine. Whether or not it's the most efficient approach.
No, he's saying that if humans possess a given property, than an arbitrary other thing *could* possess that property as well -- not that they necessarily do.