Last flight (actually last four flights) I was on had nose cameras. Believe me, there's rarely anything to see, except clouds. Seems the world is a pretty cloudy place.
The transparent plane is just an example of what could be possible. I doubt they'd do this (except perhaps as a gimmick/tech demonstrator). The idea seems that they could us a single composite structure, and by making it transparent they could eliminate the need for weakening the design by cutting holes in it. I imagine if they did make a plane like this they'd actually paint the thing.
Still, you would have the advantage of larger windows and ceiling windows.
Airbus and Boeing pretty much are the airliner industry though. Nobody else is even trying to make widebody international airliners. There are smaller companies making smaller planes but it could be that those are simply easier to make.
This is appealing to the same mentality as a big sign saying "50% off" does. Because it's offered at $5.99, people believe that it's worth $5.99. The part of the brain making decisions sees this as a bargain. If it was just priced at $2.99 then people would make up their own mind about its actual value and be less inclined to pay even that.
Of course it isn't worth $2.99, or $5.99. It's worth whatever each person is willing to pay for it. The really clever thing is that some people are actually going to feel a little guilty about getting it for the "discount" price and pay the extra.
This does strike me as a bit of a problem with ray tracing in general. Purists like it because it is an accurate model of the optical system, but while it does have a number of inherent features that you get basically for free, it's slow, and a lot of the time you can get better results in rasterisation by faking.
If I own a megaphone, and I don't lend it to you because I don't agree with you, am I violating your free speech rights?
If you're discriminating based on the nature of my use, then yes.
If I falsely scream FIRE in a theater, would I be exercising my free speech rights?
Yes. And I really really hate this one. This was originally used as an example by a Supreme court judge in order to justify a limitation of legitimate free speech. I think you have every right to yell "fire". The only punishment should be if injury is caused by such a reckless action. The reckless action itself should not be punished unless it causes injury.
Any sensible person would answer no to both questions. So where is the limit? Murray Rothbard solved this cleanly by pointing out that free speech is not a right, rather, free speech is derived from, and limited by property rights. This is how he explained it in "For a new liberty"
He's wrong. Free speech is a moral principle. As are property rights. I don't take the property of others partly because the other party has a recognised legal right to his or her property but also because I believe he has an inherent right to his property. Now, he has every legal right to use that property in as unethical a manner as he chooses, but if I disagree with how he does so I am going to be quite critical of his ethics, and make it quite clear that I don't think this is how a civilised person should behave.
Yes, we've established you're an arse. We've also established I'm a lazy error prone typist. Well done.
No, I am saying that it is incorrect. Try again.
One of my statements was "the 99.9% surety is incorrect". You claimed I was "wrong on all counts". You also claimed that the 99.9% surety is incorrect. You are inconsistent here.
Yes, I didn't think you were worth the time to actually proofread. Still, since it's so important to you, here is the corrected version.
"Wrong on all counts. Try again."
Really? From my last comment:
"Logic is reasoning from facts."
Got this one from the dictionary. Is my dictionary incorrect? If so what is logic?
"Yes, the 99.9% surety is incorrect."
Are you really saying that the 99.9% surety is correct!?
"So it seems this does make sense since you also seemed to perfectly understand the point I was trying to get across."
However I appear to have made a mistake here. Let me explain..... My original comment was illustrating the sort of apparently logical, but mathematically incorrect conclusions people might make. I gave 3 percentages. Every single one of them was incorrect and misleading. My best understanding of this sort of thing is that any such explicit probability is pretty much meaningless.
If you have an issue with comments, I'd urge you to actually explain specifically what the issue is, and explain the correction. A comment along the lines of "this is all wrong but I'm not going to explain why" is useless to everyone.
Now, you claim that "My best understanding of this sort of thing is that any such explicit probability is pretty much meaningless." is incorrect. Yhis is my best understanding. Or are you claiming to know my own mind better than I?
Why am I bothering though. You completely missed the point of the original comment and ironically made the assumption that I was at fault.
I hope for the sake of the education system that your signature is not true and that you have not attempted to teach.
Logic is reasoning from facts.
Got this one from the doctionary. Is my dictionary incorrect? If so what is logic?
Yes, the 99.9% surety is incorrect.
Are you really aying that the 99.9% surety is correct!?
So it seems this does make sense since you also seemed to perfectly understand the point I was trying to get across.
However I appear to have made a mistake here. Let me explain..... My original comment was illustrating the sort of apparently logical, but mathematically incorrect conclusions people might make. I gave 3 percentages. Every single one of them was incorrect and misleading. My best understanding of this sort of thing is that any such explicit probability is pretty much meaningless.
If you have an issue with comments, I'd urge you to actually explain specifically what the issue is, and explain the correction. A comment along the lines of "this is all wrong but I'm not going to explain why" is useless to everyone.
What about an employer that is not a corporation like a sole proprietor? Is that employer not also a private citizen and would have the right to watch what someone is doing with his property?
He owns the company. He is not the company. If he's providing equipmnt for use by his employess then it's company property and he can't. He doesn't have to allow his employees to use his personal equipment at all. He could quite legally not provide an internet connection. He could even not have any employees or even a business at all, and therefore put whatever restrictions he likes on the equipment. Once he decides that he's running a company then he has to abide by certain laws.
Depends on how loose you want to be with the term "derivative". C# certainly uses a lot of the ideas from Java, and without Java, I expect C# would have been a significantly different language.
Logic is reasoning from facts. i.e. the fact that 1 in 1000 people has this marker.
Yes, the 99.9% surety is incorrect. So it seems this does make sense since you also seemed to perfectly understand the point I was trying to get across.
There's not a single sentence in this paragraph that makes a goddamn lick of sense. Speaking of statistics, I hope you don't seriously "use them al the time".
Really? Which particular sentence do you have trouble with? 5 other people have managed to extract the meaning I intended. Perhaps you're simply bad at reading comprehension.
Surely I'm going to have a 50% match with my brother and each of my parents, and a 25% match with my grandparents though. These markers are certain to cluster within certain communities so they're not going to be completely independent
This connection isn't sound. If my calculations are correct, it should be sometime around 2007 for whomever is reading this.
You should only get a few seconds of temporal paradox. The idiot must have connected them up in a loop and got some stupid levels of feedback to get several years worth.
I speak from personal experience. I use them al the time and still don't really understand them. Not how they apply in criminal investigations anyway.
Let's say you have evidence that matches 1 in a thousand people. You search through your database of all 1000 suspects and you get a single match. Did he do it? Logically you'd expect this to mean you can be 99.9% sure. You then search through the database of a million random people. You get 1000 matches. Does this mean there's only a 0.1% chance that your original suspect was guilty? Well, maybe there's some other compelling evidence that makes it most likely that one of those 1000 people were the culprits. But you have 10000 outliers. They're each a tenth as likely to have committed the crime. You get 10 matches. So, once again we're at the 50% probability of guilt, or something in that ballpark.
I'm sure this is a somewhat different example than that given in the article but that's not the point. The point is that is there a 99.9% probability, a 0.1% probability, a 50% probability or some other probability of guilt? Or am I just trying to confuse you by throwing numbers at you?
They only tested 60 people. This is still in its early stages. the fact that 90% had this easily detectable trait is quite compelling. This figure may well improve.
Perhaps the existing tests aren't accurate enough. Nobody will be testing every child for autism. A child that has appears to be developing normally and associating with other children in a typical way is most likely not going to be tested.
Nobody cares now about things that happened a few years ago unless it was seriously psychotic. Most of the people I know are quite happy to tell everything about the mischeavious stuff they did while still at school. They're actually quite proud of it and their current employers are probably aware of it.
Meh. Slashdot's always had a certain amount of time for cool gadgets and gizmos. Not interested? Or think it's a really crappy product? You have a platform to make your case.
Large systems do not require lots of code. Complex systems do. The brain is made up of neurons that are largely identical, arranged in a number of patterns. We have all the basic building blocks to make a brain already. We just don't know how to put it together.
Amount of DNA is not a good way to estimate the number of lines of code needed. DNA is not an efficient encoding. It doesn't need to be. There's millions of years of legacy crap in there for lungfish compatibility and stuff. It doesn't cost anything to keep around and doesn't need to be maintained so it remains in there.
Slashdot Mirror
Last flight (actually last four flights) I was on had nose cameras. Believe me, there's rarely anything to see, except clouds. Seems the world is a pretty cloudy place.
The transparent plane is just an example of what could be possible. I doubt they'd do this (except perhaps as a gimmick/tech demonstrator). The idea seems that they could us a single composite structure, and by making it transparent they could eliminate the need for weakening the design by cutting holes in it. I imagine if they did make a plane like this they'd actually paint the thing.
Still, you would have the advantage of larger windows and ceiling windows.
Airbus and Boeing pretty much are the airliner industry though. Nobody else is even trying to make widebody international airliners. There are smaller companies making smaller planes but it could be that those are simply easier to make.
This is appealing to the same mentality as a big sign saying "50% off" does. Because it's offered at $5.99, people believe that it's worth $5.99. The part of the brain making decisions sees this as a bargain. If it was just priced at $2.99 then people would make up their own mind about its actual value and be less inclined to pay even that. Of course it isn't worth $2.99, or $5.99. It's worth whatever each person is willing to pay for it. The really clever thing is that some people are actually going to feel a little guilty about getting it for the "discount" price and pay the extra.
This does strike me as a bit of a problem with ray tracing in general. Purists like it because it is an accurate model of the optical system, but while it does have a number of inherent features that you get basically for free, it's slow, and a lot of the time you can get better results in rasterisation by faking.
Most people do. Unless you're very unlucky you don't get much practice.
If I own a megaphone, and I don't lend it to you because I don't agree with you, am I violating your free speech rights?
If you're discriminating based on the nature of my use, then yes.
If I falsely scream FIRE in a theater, would I be exercising my free speech rights?
Yes. And I really really hate this one. This was originally used as an example by a Supreme court judge in order to justify a limitation of legitimate free speech. I think you have every right to yell "fire". The only punishment should be if injury is caused by such a reckless action. The reckless action itself should not be punished unless it causes injury.
Any sensible person would answer no to both questions. So where is the limit? Murray Rothbard solved this cleanly by pointing out that free speech is not a right, rather, free speech is derived from, and limited by property rights. This is how he explained it in "For a new liberty"
He's wrong. Free speech is a moral principle. As are property rights. I don't take the property of others partly because the other party has a recognised legal right to his or her property but also because I believe he has an inherent right to his property. Now, he has every legal right to use that property in as unethical a manner as he chooses, but if I disagree with how he does so I am going to be quite critical of his ethics, and make it quite clear that I don't think this is how a civilised person should behave.
Maybe. Depends on definitions. What difference does it make?
Yes, we've established you're an arse. We've also established I'm a lazy error prone typist. Well done.
No, I am saying that it is incorrect. Try again.
One of my statements was "the 99.9% surety is incorrect". You claimed I was "wrong on all counts". You also claimed that the 99.9% surety is incorrect. You are inconsistent here.
If you have an issue with comments, I'd urge you to actually explain specifically what the issue is, and explain the correction. A comment along the lines of "this is all wrong but I'm not going to explain why" is useless to everyone.
Now, you claim that "My best understanding of this sort of thing is that any such explicit probability is pretty much meaningless." is incorrect. Yhis is my best understanding. Or are you claiming to know my own mind better than I?
Why am I bothering though. You completely missed the point of the original comment and ironically made the assumption that I was at fault.
I hope for the sake of the education system that your signature is not true and that you have not attempted to teach.
Wrong on all counts. Try again.
Really? From my last comment:
Logic is reasoning from facts. Got this one from the doctionary. Is my dictionary incorrect? If so what is logic?
Yes, the 99.9% surety is incorrect.
Are you really aying that the 99.9% surety is correct!?
So it seems this does make sense since you also seemed to perfectly understand the point I was trying to get across.
However I appear to have made a mistake here. Let me explain..... My original comment was illustrating the sort of apparently logical, but mathematically incorrect conclusions people might make. I gave 3 percentages. Every single one of them was incorrect and misleading. My best understanding of this sort of thing is that any such explicit probability is pretty much meaningless.
If you have an issue with comments, I'd urge you to actually explain specifically what the issue is, and explain the correction. A comment along the lines of "this is all wrong but I'm not going to explain why" is useless to everyone.
What about an employer that is not a corporation like a sole proprietor? Is that employer not also a private citizen and would have the right to watch what someone is doing with his property?
He owns the company. He is not the company. If he's providing equipmnt for use by his employess then it's company property and he can't. He doesn't have to allow his employees to use his personal equipment at all. He could quite legally not provide an internet connection. He could even not have any employees or even a business at all, and therefore put whatever restrictions he likes on the equipment. Once he decides that he's running a company then he has to abide by certain laws.
I guess that could happen. Actualy it's something that could happen already in the existing legal framework. For some reason it doesn't.
Since this doesn't happen do we need the law to prevent it?
Maybe, maybe not. But whatever the case, facebook use is an untested metric. As such, it's a pretty moronic thing to use as a performance measure.
Depends on how loose you want to be with the term "derivative". C# certainly uses a lot of the ideas from Java, and without Java, I expect C# would have been a significantly different language.
Logic is reasoning from facts. i.e. the fact that 1 in 1000 people has this marker.
Yes, the 99.9% surety is incorrect. So it seems this does make sense since you also seemed to perfectly understand the point I was trying to get across.
There's not a single sentence in this paragraph that makes a goddamn lick of sense. Speaking of statistics, I hope you don't seriously "use them al the time".
Really? Which particular sentence do you have trouble with? 5 other people have managed to extract the meaning I intended. Perhaps you're simply bad at reading comprehension.
Surely I'm going to have a 50% match with my brother and each of my parents, and a 25% match with my grandparents though. These markers are certain to cluster within certain communities so they're not going to be completely independent
This connection isn't sound. If my calculations are correct, it should be sometime around 2007 for whomever is reading this.
You should only get a few seconds of temporal paradox. The idiot must have connected them up in a loop and got some stupid levels of feedback to get several years worth.
I speak from personal experience. I use them al the time and still don't really understand them. Not how they apply in criminal investigations anyway.
Let's say you have evidence that matches 1 in a thousand people. You search through your database of all 1000 suspects and you get a single match. Did he do it? Logically you'd expect this to mean you can be 99.9% sure. You then search through the database of a million random people. You get 1000 matches. Does this mean there's only a 0.1% chance that your original suspect was guilty? Well, maybe there's some other compelling evidence that makes it most likely that one of those 1000 people were the culprits. But you have 10000 outliers. They're each a tenth as likely to have committed the crime. You get 10 matches. So, once again we're at the 50% probability of guilt, or something in that ballpark.
I'm sure this is a somewhat different example than that given in the article but that's not the point. The point is that is there a 99.9% probability, a 0.1% probability, a 50% probability or some other probability of guilt? Or am I just trying to confuse you by throwing numbers at you?
Crossrail has 22km underground. That's going to add a fair bit to the cost so not really a fair comparison.
They only tested 60 people. This is still in its early stages. the fact that 90% had this easily detectable trait is quite compelling. This figure may well improve.
Perhaps the existing tests aren't accurate enough. Nobody will be testing every child for autism. A child that has appears to be developing normally and associating with other children in a typical way is most likely not going to be tested.
Nobody cares now about things that happened a few years ago unless it was seriously psychotic. Most of the people I know are quite happy to tell everything about the mischeavious stuff they did while still at school. They're actually quite proud of it and their current employers are probably aware of it.
Meh. Slashdot's always had a certain amount of time for cool gadgets and gizmos. Not interested? Or think it's a really crappy product? You have a platform to make your case.
Large systems do not require lots of code. Complex systems do. The brain is made up of neurons that are largely identical, arranged in a number of patterns. We have all the basic building blocks to make a brain already. We just don't know how to put it together.
Amount of DNA is not a good way to estimate the number of lines of code needed. DNA is not an efficient encoding. It doesn't need to be. There's millions of years of legacy crap in there for lungfish compatibility and stuff. It doesn't cost anything to keep around and doesn't need to be maintained so it remains in there.