As someone who has done actual research on modeling the brain using neural networks, I felt I should chime in. Neural networks as traditionally studied in AI are not exactly like real-brain neurons. How do I know this? Because the way real neurons work is still a subject of much debate and research among neuroscientists. Moreover, even given the difficulties, modeling the way neurons work is practically effortless compared to recreating the structure of interconnection in the brain - the heterogeneity of different neuronal types within single regions, the complex intra- and inter-lobe connection topologies, the appropriate synaptic weightings and learning functions, etc.. It's all far beyond current scientific knowledge, not just modern technology. But the fact is that virtually none of this is being done in AI these days - today, it's all being done in the context of verifying neural models.
Just because researchers can use certain neuron simplifications to get similar results to certain parts of brain function (ask me about this some time! I'll talk your ear off...) doesn't mean we know enough to make claims about the root causes of neurological diseases because we've taken an AI course. Moreover, while it's possible that the "speech area"'s (which one is that, again?) neurons have become untrained to signals from "normal speech", amateur analysis really isn't what's called for here - after all, "training the neurons back" is just relearning how to speak - it's hardly something that nobody will have tried. There are a wide variety of non-neuronal/non-synaptic problems (at least in the sense of simple mathematical weighting) that can cause it, and I assure you that far better-informed minds than yours or mine can comment and research them. (Just a for instance, neurotransmitter reuptake or production may have been pushed out of balance. Or, drug interaction may have targeted particular kinds of synapses. Or, while we're about it, the "speech area" may have become overtrained so that no coherent message is coming out off the noise.) In any case, infering neural root causes based on gross behavior is a delicate art, and one that should not be undertaken by armchair neuroscientists.
No, it's like saying you don't belie ve people have an inherent right to privacy, which many jurists and scholars do say. Or, it's like saying you don't believe you have a right to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Or disagree that the government has a right to tax its citizens. (Note - I'm not equating any of RMS'/GNU's ideology to these rights, I'm just saying that there are "rights" about which reasonable people can disagree.)
Fundamentally, one can disagree with the GPL's philosophy that "information wants to be free" and that therefore, Open Source is a superior moral stance. For example, a great many people feel that the ability to protect your inventions, and thereby your profits, with patent and copyright laws is a significant factor in motivating innovation. This doesn't mean that these people feel that others should not feel free to share their work, but they may feel that others should have no expectation of receiving the fruits of another's labor for free.
Again, I really am not espousing one view or another, but I want to point out that there are legitimate philosphical reservations one can have about the GNU philosophy.
Because it's easier. At the beginning of his speech you know where he is going, which is a lot easier than knowing where he's coming from at the end. Additionally, the crowd will be settling down to see a speech, not applauding/leaving/etc., so you don't have to fight a crowd to get to him.
But like 100% of their population is brown, right? And "from what I've heard", they've got Muslims in their movies and bodies of government. Besides, it's a "well known fact" that Muslims are all fascists, especially those who seek power, just India's president Abdul Kalam.
Seriously, I don't really know why you or I took the time to respond to the GP, except maybe to make sure that people reading his comment know that it has no basis in fact. India's Muslim population is undoubtedly increasing, but India has existed for a long time as a country where religions, in particular Hinduism and Islam, have lived side by side. (This is admitedly in part because many Islamic nationalist left in 1947 to form a Muslim nation.) Of course, there are religious tensions, but in fact they're at most moderately greater than the cultural tensions. (It may surprise people to know that India is not a big homogenous culture - I know it would surprise the hell out of Hollywood, where often characters of one cultural background are given Indian-sounding names of a completely different origin.) Remember - India is a predominantly Hindu country which elected a Muslim president and a Sikh prime minister.
People really need to think about how their product names parse when the words are run together and all one case. This is a particularly bad case, because there is only one way to parse "keepass" into real English words, and it's not the way they wanted. I'm sure they liked the idea of sharing the last letter of the first word with the first of the last, and sometimes it works. Other times, though, you end up naming your project "Keep Ass"
That's why, as a l337 hax0r, you can run a mixed system. Nobody stops you from installing unstable packages, right from apt, even! (Check out that -t flag!) Or even better, you can actually build your own source.
The argument for Gentoo that "I like the idea of building my own source" in the sense of "I like getting down and dirty into my system" is really kind of bull. I ran Gentoo for a while, and I thought they had done some amazing work. Portage/emerge is just amazingly well done, and it's nice to have code that's been optimized for my hardware requirements. It's not exactly scalable (maintaining a large set of diverse hardware is a lot harder), and it can lead to untenable situations and instability, but it's still damn cool. And you know what's really cool about it? It's the convenience of apt, for source packages! Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are "building your own source" -- the Gentoo maintainers are very diligently, very cleverly packaging the source so that you can specify a set of system parameters and then let it build. If you really want to get nitty gritty, run Slackware (although, I guess they have package management now, too). Gentoo has lots of merits, but the truth is, most Gentoo users know no more or less about how things work than an average Liinux user.
For me, in the end, the speedup I was getting just wasn't making up for the hours it would take each time I ran a system-wide upgrade and the unexpected conflicts because the USE flags that made each package special for MY computer were screwing up MY computer something fierce.
You forgot Universal. And between them, we have what's known as The Big Six - the six biggest movie studo parent corporations, making up the majority of mass-marketed films in the country. One of the few other potentially major players-to-be in the market, the Weinstein Company, has a distribution deal with MGM, subsidiary of Sony. So when you say "a few movie studios", you mean the ones that make almost all the movies that will make it to an HD format, and the ones who people are most worried about using DRM schemes.
I almost went into grammar nazi mode to correct your use of "it's" in lieu of "its". However, re-parsing the sentence, I prefer to interpret it as "I'd still recommend the comic, for it's intelligent humour," because it's a construction that needs to be used more often. So, feel duly admonished for leaving out the comma.
I guess in general there are two ways to look at the world. One is to trust that everyone knows what they're doing, and what you risk is that something will snap you in the ass later on. (I freely admit to spending time tracking down misspelled variable names in PHP because there is no equivalent to "option explicit".) The other is to trust no one and validate every piece of data that comes your way. I prefer the former, you (appear to prefer) the latter. Each is valid, depending on how you view the world.
I suppose if you view the world as a wondrous opportunity to debug, the former is a valid point of view. Please don't misunderstand me - I feel that if you're extending these philosophies to other facets of life, I'm all for your perspective of trusting others. However, history has demonstrated that in any engineering discipline, especially software engineering, you must put in safeguards and make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. After all, strcpy is fine as long as people do the right thing.
Don't get me wrong - you shouldn't bug the hell out of your users by forcing them to behave in just the right way to make your program dance. But you shouldn't allow them to do the wrong thing, no matter how much you trust them. The number of disastrous failures that occured because software relied on users to "do the right thing" boggles the mind.
I don't personally have any investment in either DB, but the concept that you should not make sure that your input is correct is so passé it honestly surprised me to see somebody espouse it.
The thing is, from my personal experience, GNOME isn't ignoreing the users who are capable or willing to do a fork - they'll take patches, but they ignore feature requests from end-users who can't code, even if they're feasible and make sense.
It's X509 certificates/PKI. I mean, admittedly, it could just send the data encrypted to an AOL key as well as the recipient, so there's that, but it's not exactly "home rolled"
For the record, vim is a very respectable, nice version of vi that works in the shell. You might be thinking of gvim, which is a GUI wrapper around the vim core...
I don't think anybody disagrees that they'd rather have one faster chip, but really, wouldn't you rather have two faster chips? Let's think of a not-uncommon situation for me when I was a first year that made me glad I had two processors: I played a lot of q3a, I liked a soundtrack while I blew up my friends. I ran both q3a and xmms simultaneously, no bottleneck (besides ram). Of course, a lot of the rendering got done on my then state-of-the art AIW Radeon 32 MB, but the AI (wwhen there were bots), etc all took up one of my blazing fast 1 GHz PIIIs while my audio thread never jumped.
Obviously, dual cores/SMP are not going to help you on a single, un-parallelizableprogram, but the likelihood of your average college user, for example, having a single program running at once is slim to none - and if you're running enough of them, they're not always waiting on I/O. Of course, I would've traded my 2 1 GHz processors for one 2 GHz processors anyday, but back then 1.3 GHz was pushing hte envelope.
mmm... RAID striping is meant to be a speed upgrade. It is very possible to have a RAID setup with no redundnacy, but about twice the throughput, by alternating which words get written to which drive. Of course, if one drive fails, you're fubar, but then, that's true on a single-drive system too. With a striped drives, you're just (roughly) twice as likely to have it happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Google meets clippy... the horror! The horror!
As someone who has done actual research on modeling the brain using neural networks, I felt I should chime in. Neural networks as traditionally studied in AI are not exactly like real-brain neurons. How do I know this? Because the way real neurons work is still a subject of much debate and research among neuroscientists. Moreover, even given the difficulties, modeling the way neurons work is practically effortless compared to recreating the structure of interconnection in the brain - the heterogeneity of different neuronal types within single regions, the complex intra- and inter-lobe connection topologies, the appropriate synaptic weightings and learning functions, etc.. It's all far beyond current scientific knowledge, not just modern technology. But the fact is that virtually none of this is being done in AI these days - today, it's all being done in the context of verifying neural models.
Just because researchers can use certain neuron simplifications to get similar results to certain parts of brain function (ask me about this some time! I'll talk your ear off...) doesn't mean we know enough to make claims about the root causes of neurological diseases because we've taken an AI course. Moreover, while it's possible that the "speech area"'s (which one is that, again?) neurons have become untrained to signals from "normal speech", amateur analysis really isn't what's called for here - after all, "training the neurons back" is just relearning how to speak - it's hardly something that nobody will have tried. There are a wide variety of non-neuronal/non-synaptic problems (at least in the sense of simple mathematical weighting) that can cause it, and I assure you that far better-informed minds than yours or mine can comment and research them. (Just a for instance, neurotransmitter reuptake or production may have been pushed out of balance. Or, drug interaction may have targeted particular kinds of synapses. Or, while we're about it, the "speech area" may have become overtrained so that no coherent message is coming out off the noise.) In any case, infering neural root causes based on gross behavior is a delicate art, and one that should not be undertaken by armchair neuroscientists.
It's like saying you disagree with free speech.
No, it's like saying you don't belie ve people have an inherent right to privacy, which many jurists and scholars do say. Or, it's like saying you don't believe you have a right to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Or disagree that the government has a right to tax its citizens. (Note - I'm not equating any of RMS'/GNU's ideology to these rights, I'm just saying that there are "rights" about which reasonable people can disagree.)
Fundamentally, one can disagree with the GPL's philosophy that "information wants to be free" and that therefore, Open Source is a superior moral stance. For example, a great many people feel that the ability to protect your inventions, and thereby your profits, with patent and copyright laws is a significant factor in motivating innovation. This doesn't mean that these people feel that others should not feel free to share their work, but they may feel that others should have no expectation of receiving the fruits of another's labor for free.
Again, I really am not espousing one view or another, but I want to point out that there are legitimate philosphical reservations one can have about the GNU philosophy.
Because it's easier.
At the beginning of his speech you know where he is going, which is a lot easier than knowing where he's coming from at the end. Additionally, the crowd will be settling down to see a speech, not applauding/leaving/etc., so you don't have to fight a crowd to get to him.
"Show the statistically significant predictive (ha-ha) value of it."
But like 100% of their population is brown, right? And "from what I've heard", they've got Muslims in their movies and bodies of government. Besides, it's a "well known fact" that Muslims are all fascists, especially those who seek power, just India's president Abdul Kalam.
Seriously, I don't really know why you or I took the time to respond to the GP, except maybe to make sure that people reading his comment know that it has no basis in fact. India's Muslim population is undoubtedly increasing, but India has existed for a long time as a country where religions, in particular Hinduism and Islam, have lived side by side. (This is admitedly in part because many Islamic nationalist left in 1947 to form a Muslim nation.) Of course, there are religious tensions, but in fact they're at most moderately greater than the cultural tensions. (It may surprise people to know that India is not a big homogenous culture - I know it would surprise the hell out of Hollywood, where often characters of one cultural background are given Indian-sounding names of a completely different origin.) Remember - India is a predominantly Hindu country which elected a Muslim president and a Sikh prime minister.
People really need to think about how their product names parse when the words are run together and all one case. This is a particularly bad case, because there is only one way to parse "keepass" into real English words, and it's not the way they wanted. I'm sure they liked the idea of sharing the last letter of the first word with the first of the last, and sometimes it works. Other times, though, you end up naming your project "Keep Ass"
That's why, as a l337 hax0r, you can run a mixed system. Nobody stops you from installing unstable packages, right from apt, even! (Check out that -t flag!) Or even better, you can actually build your own source.
The argument for Gentoo that "I like the idea of building my own source" in the sense of "I like getting down and dirty into my system" is really kind of bull. I ran Gentoo for a while, and I thought they had done some amazing work. Portage/emerge is just amazingly well done, and it's nice to have code that's been optimized for my hardware requirements. It's not exactly scalable (maintaining a large set of diverse hardware is a lot harder), and it can lead to untenable situations and instability, but it's still damn cool. And you know what's really cool about it? It's the convenience of apt, for source packages! Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are "building your own source" -- the Gentoo maintainers are very diligently, very cleverly packaging the source so that you can specify a set of system parameters and then let it build. If you really want to get nitty gritty, run Slackware (although, I guess they have package management now, too). Gentoo has lots of merits, but the truth is, most Gentoo users know no more or less about how things work than an average Liinux user.
For me, in the end, the speedup I was getting just wasn't making up for the hours it would take each time I ran a system-wide upgrade and the unexpected conflicts because the USE flags that made each package special for MY computer were screwing up MY computer something fierce.
You forgot Universal. And between them, we have what's known as The Big Six - the six biggest movie studo parent corporations, making up the majority of mass-marketed films in the country. One of the few other potentially major players-to-be in the market, the Weinstein Company, has a distribution deal with MGM, subsidiary of Sony. So when you say "a few movie studios", you mean the ones that make almost all the movies that will make it to an HD format, and the ones who people are most worried about using DRM schemes.
I almost went into grammar nazi mode to correct your use of "it's" in lieu of "its". However, re-parsing the sentence, I prefer to interpret it as "I'd still recommend the comic, for it's intelligent humour," because it's a construction that needs to be used more often. So, feel duly admonished for leaving out the comma.
Right up at the top, it says "they-called-this-divx-didn't-they?"
$1,159 was $18,805 shy of his bail? The judge set bail at $19,964? Somebody mis-type $1,195, or did somebody misread 1,159?
1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3...?
I guess in general there are two ways to look at the world. One is to trust that everyone knows what they're doing, and what you risk is that something will snap you in the ass later on. (I freely admit to spending time tracking down misspelled variable names in PHP because there is no equivalent to "option explicit".) The other is to trust no one and validate every piece of data that comes your way. I prefer the former, you (appear to prefer) the latter. Each is valid, depending on how you view the world.
I suppose if you view the world as a wondrous opportunity to debug, the former is a valid point of view. Please don't misunderstand me - I feel that if you're extending these philosophies to other facets of life, I'm all for your perspective of trusting others. However, history has demonstrated that in any engineering discipline, especially software engineering, you must put in safeguards and make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. After all, strcpy is fine as long as people do the right thing.
Don't get me wrong - you shouldn't bug the hell out of your users by forcing them to behave in just the right way to make your program dance. But you shouldn't allow them to do the wrong thing, no matter how much you trust them. The number of disastrous failures that occured because software relied on users to "do the right thing" boggles the mind.
I don't personally have any investment in either DB, but the concept that you should not make sure that your input is correct is so passé it honestly surprised me to see somebody espouse it.
That's right, +1
The thing is, from my personal experience, GNOME isn't ignoreing the users who are capable or willing to do a fork - they'll take patches, but they ignore feature requests from end-users who can't code, even if they're feasible and make sense.
It's X509 certificates/PKI. I mean, admittedly, it could just send the data encrypted to an AOL key as well as the recipient, so there's that, but it's not exactly "home rolled"
Lots of PCs w/ USB won't boot from it.
You're not saying that in an interview which I am perfectly free to read, though, are you?
For the record, vim is a very respectable, nice version of vi that works in the shell. You might be thinking of gvim, which is a GUI wrapper around the vim core...
Paying one's respects?
I don't think anybody disagrees that they'd rather have one faster chip, but really, wouldn't you rather have two faster chips? Let's think of a not-uncommon situation for me when I was a first year that made me glad I had two processors:
I played a lot of q3a, I liked a soundtrack while I blew up my friends. I ran both q3a and xmms simultaneously, no bottleneck (besides ram). Of course, a lot of the rendering got done on my then state-of-the art AIW Radeon 32 MB, but the AI (wwhen there were bots), etc all took up one of my blazing fast 1 GHz PIIIs while my audio thread never jumped.
Obviously, dual cores/SMP are not going to help you on a single, un-parallelizableprogram, but the likelihood of your average college user, for example, having a single program running at once is slim to none - and if you're running enough of them, they're not always waiting on I/O. Of course, I would've traded my 2 1 GHz processors for one 2 GHz processors anyday, but back then 1.3 GHz was pushing hte envelope.
mmm... RAID striping is meant to be a speed upgrade. It is very possible to have a RAID setup with no redundnacy, but about twice the throughput, by alternating which words get written to which drive. Of course, if one drive fails, you're fubar, but then, that's true on a single-drive system too. With a striped drives, you're just (roughly) twice as likely to have it happen.
Not to mention "I've"
telling the government that you do in fact own twenty rifles and help train your friends in civil insurgency? Sure. It'll keep them honest.
Terrorist! Off you go to Guantanamo Bay - no, leave those rights at home, you won't need them.