Well, you got the nice federal prisons in the US, the less nice US federal prison in Cuba, and possibly even a few really dirty ones in Syria and Egypt. Maybe, these US federal prisons in the Arab world are going to be dismantled by the local populace in the near future. Luckily we'll always have Poland.
Yes, I'm absolutely sure that the Skype executive that did this will get fired by Microsoft the moment they take operational control. "Why did you decide to kill off part of your base without consulting us first!", they will ask, and "We were about to take over your company, moron." they will continue. The Skype executive will mumble something about long term viability of Skype as a platform, and executing against strategic plans from 5 years ago, but the fact will remain: he will get fired for not checking with his new masters if a highly public move was okay right before the acquisition. Poor sod.
Saddam Hussein was killed by Iraqis, and we all know what a brutal and primitive bunch these are. Watch the footage if you don't believe me. The American military only kills through surgical strikes: no blood, no gore, clinical and precise. It's civilized.
Take a big wall, stand clear from that wall, blindfold yourself, and throw a dart towards that wall. Now create a small circle where that dart landed on the wall. Now you can claim that there must have been some intelligent throwing going on, because the probability of actually hitting that exact spot in the wall while being blindfolded is extremely damn small. Food for thought.
If religion is the normative study of how the world should be, I hand in my membership card. Religion is probably the worst method of doing normative study, as it is based on fairy tales of ages old, arguments from authority, and stuff people make up on the spot. Ethics can be approach logically, consistently, and without any reference to a book that supposedly contains the basis of your ethics (or the basis of 20 mutually inconsistent normative approaches). As there's no solid basis for weighing argumentation, a religious normative debate usually ends up with a cabal of people claiming to be right because 'God says so'.
And you think it makes sense to take normative lessons from a bunch of losers that followed the son of a deity 2000 years ago?
Christianity as a source of value is just as irrational and illogical as christianity as a source of science. An example: on the one hand you have people that believe that you need to help your neighbours (cuz God sayz so), on the other hand you have people that believe that God helps people that help themselves, so there's no need for helping people at all. You've got people believing that wealth accumulation is a sign of being loved by God, others think that you will go to hell for that.
Should you stone adulterers to death? The book says so. What do we do with homo-sexuals? As with science, christianity is completely inadequate to form a basis for normative thinking, as you have to throw 3/4 of the book out to be consistent. And everybody throws a different 3/4 away. It's pick and choose, and morally bankrupt.
Easy: Democrat voters are commie pinko socialist dictators, out to kill America, while Republican voters are bible thumping young earth creationists determined to get rid of science. Democrat politicians are bought and paid for by corporate America, same as Republican politicians. Now be a good consumer and pick a side.
I think $300B is still overkill. Given that the nearest country in military spending, China, spends about $110B a year on the military, followed by France's $60B, combined with the fact that either foe will have to cross the Pacific or the Atlantic to reach the US, I'm sure that a measly $30B (more than the combined expenditure of Canada and Mexico) would be enough for defense. For offense you would need more.
Doesn't explain the need for outnumbering the rest of the world combined though. The US can tone it down a little with little adverse effect. If China or Russia wants to play ball... it's a big ocean.
We feel disgust for the financial sector not only because it screwed up the economy, but probably even more because the sector as a whole is apparently not capable of cleansing itself, nor does it think there's anything wrong. The financial sector should get its act together internally, and maybe even go so far as asking the government to impose some sensible regulations that ensures that this crap doesn't happen again. Maybe then the sector as a whole can stop being a drain on society, and quietly do their boring business.
Won't help. The banks would gladly let themselves go bankrupt, thereby killing the financial system, while the bankers would happily watch Rome burn, their years of loot safely tucked away.
It's the individuals that matter here, and boy, are they rotten. That's why you shouldn't let your geek friends work in finance.
If a website gets hacked, it is sad. If the website in question is the home of one of the products that is commonly used by websites, it is already ironic. Apparently even the builders of this product don't know how to secure a website using their product.
Not entirely true. I could envision an implementation of list.size() that will keep track of the size over insertions and deletions, and for which a call to splice() would set an unknown_size flag, triggering a count when set. Then the implementation of size() would be O(1) usually, and O(n) after a splice() took place. If you don't use splice() a lot, this would only add the check for the flag, if you do use splice() a lot, you should know better than to use it in combination with size().
I think that CMU's point is that in a world where serial speed is stagnant, but where computers will become increasingly parallel (thousands of cores), a methodology that tightly links state and function, and which main mode of operation is to mutate state (i.e., OO) is not a likely candidate to stay dominant.
Uhm, doesn't compute. The thesis: "The Evolutionist model is not within the realm of science" is being explained by the "first Picosecond of the universe" not being applicable by science? That's an argument against big-bang physics, not evolution. Evolution simply describes what happens when you have self-replicating structures in a diverse environment that compete for resources. They will evolve, no question about it. There's no universe involved in this, the origin of getting to these self-replicating structures is not even part of it. It just describes what happens. And it does. Batteries are included.
Yes, coward, individuals from these groups would be favored by natural selection. In their group. Another group/family, having less of those 'immoral' persons would easily outcompete the former group by working together, and therefore would survive. Or it happened completely differently. Bottom line: it's a bit unexpected to say, in this century, that, because you don't see an obvious way how particular human traits came to be that this shows that all of biology is necessarily wrong. Biology has been pretty successful on this premise. Even more, what also doesn't follow is that even when you have proven all of biology to be wrong with a snide remark on/., that we need to study the Thora, or the Koran, or the Vedas, or (God help us) something as archaic as the New Testament for answers. Your emperor has no clothes.
It's about predicting the runtime characteristics of your system. Analyzing everything as a Turing machine ignores the 'constants'. The constants in a real machine do matter. CS concentrates on algorithms, not on systems. Systems do matter.
Industry deals with systems of computers, CS works with an idealized model and states that the rest is irrelevant. Computation is not just theory, it's also empirical. Once you've seen an O(n^2) algorithm beat an O(n^1.91) on workloads of significant 'n' due to better use of L1 cache, you might appreciate that.
Oh, I don't call implementing a result from calculus calculus, no worries. I just call it copying. The point is that in order to understand what you're doing (and why multiplying link values with numbers larger than 0.1 is generally not a good idea) some calculus does help.
Wouldn't it be even better if they would have taught you this lesson by teaching you something that you actually could use? Like doing the same idiotic thing over and over again, stealing the homework of your fellow students, or licking the professors boots? Sounds that you might have learned even more from that than from calculus.
When coding a neural network, you use gradient descent. Computation of the gradient (your arithmetic) is one of the basic operations in calculus. You can claim that you can code them without being aware of it, but then again, I can probably copy a Chinese book without needing to know Chinese either. Question is if I understand what I wrote. Same goes for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you got the nice federal prisons in the US, the less nice US federal prison in Cuba, and possibly even a few really dirty ones in Syria and Egypt. Maybe, these US federal prisons in the Arab world are going to be dismantled by the local populace in the near future. Luckily we'll always have Poland.
Yes, I'm absolutely sure that the Skype executive that did this will get fired by Microsoft the moment they take operational control. "Why did you decide to kill off part of your base without consulting us first!", they will ask, and "We were about to take over your company, moron." they will continue. The Skype executive will mumble something about long term viability of Skype as a platform, and executing against strategic plans from 5 years ago, but the fact will remain: he will get fired for not checking with his new masters if a highly public move was okay right before the acquisition. Poor sod.
Pfah, Chomsky is a loony. How do I know? All newspapers say so.
Saddam Hussein was killed by Iraqis, and we all know what a brutal and primitive bunch these are. Watch the footage if you don't believe me. The American military only kills through surgical strikes: no blood, no gore, clinical and precise. It's civilized.
Take a big wall, stand clear from that wall, blindfold yourself, and throw a dart towards that wall. Now create a small circle where that dart landed on the wall. Now you can claim that there must have been some intelligent throwing going on, because the probability of actually hitting that exact spot in the wall while being blindfolded is extremely damn small. Food for thought.
If religion is the normative study of how the world should be, I hand in my membership card. Religion is probably the worst method of doing normative study, as it is based on fairy tales of ages old, arguments from authority, and stuff people make up on the spot. Ethics can be approach logically, consistently, and without any reference to a book that supposedly contains the basis of your ethics (or the basis of 20 mutually inconsistent normative approaches). As there's no solid basis for weighing argumentation, a religious normative debate usually ends up with a cabal of people claiming to be right because 'God says so'.
And you think it makes sense to take normative lessons from a bunch of losers that followed the son of a deity 2000 years ago? Christianity as a source of value is just as irrational and illogical as christianity as a source of science. An example: on the one hand you have people that believe that you need to help your neighbours (cuz God sayz so), on the other hand you have people that believe that God helps people that help themselves, so there's no need for helping people at all. You've got people believing that wealth accumulation is a sign of being loved by God, others think that you will go to hell for that. Should you stone adulterers to death? The book says so. What do we do with homo-sexuals? As with science, christianity is completely inadequate to form a basis for normative thinking, as you have to throw 3/4 of the book out to be consistent. And everybody throws a different 3/4 away. It's pick and choose, and morally bankrupt.
Easy: Democrat voters are commie pinko socialist dictators, out to kill America, while Republican voters are bible thumping young earth creationists determined to get rid of science. Democrat politicians are bought and paid for by corporate America, same as Republican politicians. Now be a good consumer and pick a side.
For the employee, there are no "free" vacations. Not being in the business for 1.5 years seriously reduces your worth in the market.
I think $300B is still overkill. Given that the nearest country in military spending, China, spends about $110B a year on the military, followed by France's $60B, combined with the fact that either foe will have to cross the Pacific or the Atlantic to reach the US, I'm sure that a measly $30B (more than the combined expenditure of Canada and Mexico) would be enough for defense. For offense you would need more.
Doesn't explain the need for outnumbering the rest of the world combined though. The US can tone it down a little with little adverse effect. If China or Russia wants to play ball... it's a big ocean.
Concrete example of state mutation? Methods.
We feel disgust for the financial sector not only because it screwed up the economy, but probably even more because the sector as a whole is apparently not capable of cleansing itself, nor does it think there's anything wrong. The financial sector should get its act together internally, and maybe even go so far as asking the government to impose some sensible regulations that ensures that this crap doesn't happen again. Maybe then the sector as a whole can stop being a drain on society, and quietly do their boring business.
Won't help. The banks would gladly let themselves go bankrupt, thereby killing the financial system, while the bankers would happily watch Rome burn, their years of loot safely tucked away. It's the individuals that matter here, and boy, are they rotten. That's why you shouldn't let your geek friends work in finance.
If a website gets hacked, it is sad. If the website in question is the home of one of the products that is commonly used by websites, it is already ironic. Apparently even the builders of this product don't know how to secure a website using their product.
People now see different behaviour if they run their code in gcc vs. msvc vs. icc. And that is acceptable?
Not entirely true. I could envision an implementation of list.size() that will keep track of the size over insertions and deletions, and for which a call to splice() would set an unknown_size flag, triggering a count when set. Then the implementation of size() would be O(1) usually, and O(n) after a splice() took place. If you don't use splice() a lot, this would only add the check for the flag, if you do use splice() a lot, you should know better than to use it in combination with size().
I think that CMU's point is that in a world where serial speed is stagnant, but where computers will become increasingly parallel (thousands of cores), a methodology that tightly links state and function, and which main mode of operation is to mutate state (i.e., OO) is not a likely candidate to stay dominant.
Uhm, doesn't compute. The thesis: "The Evolutionist model is not within the realm of science" is being explained by the "first Picosecond of the universe" not being applicable by science? That's an argument against big-bang physics, not evolution. Evolution simply describes what happens when you have self-replicating structures in a diverse environment that compete for resources. They will evolve, no question about it. There's no universe involved in this, the origin of getting to these self-replicating structures is not even part of it. It just describes what happens. And it does. Batteries are included.
Yes, coward, individuals from these groups would be favored by natural selection. In their group. Another group/family, having less of those 'immoral' persons would easily outcompete the former group by working together, and therefore would survive. Or it happened completely differently. Bottom line: it's a bit unexpected to say, in this century, that, because you don't see an obvious way how particular human traits came to be that this shows that all of biology is necessarily wrong. Biology has been pretty successful on this premise. Even more, what also doesn't follow is that even when you have proven all of biology to be wrong with a snide remark on /., that we need to study the Thora, or the Koran, or the Vedas, or (God help us) something as archaic as the New Testament for answers. Your emperor has no clothes.
It's about predicting the runtime characteristics of your system. Analyzing everything as a Turing machine ignores the 'constants'. The constants in a real machine do matter. CS concentrates on algorithms, not on systems. Systems do matter. Industry deals with systems of computers, CS works with an idealized model and states that the rest is irrelevant. Computation is not just theory, it's also empirical. Once you've seen an O(n^2) algorithm beat an O(n^1.91) on workloads of significant 'n' due to better use of L1 cache, you might appreciate that.
Oh, I don't call implementing a result from calculus calculus, no worries. I just call it copying. The point is that in order to understand what you're doing (and why multiplying link values with numbers larger than 0.1 is generally not a good idea) some calculus does help.
Sure, NoSQL: when your application is worth more than your data.
Wouldn't it be even better if they would have taught you this lesson by teaching you something that you actually could use? Like doing the same idiotic thing over and over again, stealing the homework of your fellow students, or licking the professors boots? Sounds that you might have learned even more from that than from calculus.
When coding a neural network, you use gradient descent. Computation of the gradient (your arithmetic) is one of the basic operations in calculus. You can claim that you can code them without being aware of it, but then again, I can probably copy a Chinese book without needing to know Chinese either. Question is if I understand what I wrote. Same goes for you.