OSPF weights each hop according to speed. The exceptions to its results are rare, but definable, and other routing protocols are used where they're expected.
You mean to say that this thing is measured as outperforming non-statistical recursive routing methods?
"good at solving" - define "good" here, and how does it compare to a directed algorithm
"good at thinking up solutions" - wait, this is different. now they're not solving, they're thinking-up solutions. instead of being dumb actors with rule-based behaviors and reacting to external stimuli, they're now using their own internal models to plan how they will route themselves. (no, it isn't, i'm being sarcastic, the author just used a bad metaphor that inadvertently inverted the whole premise of the experiment.)
"working on something that can act as well as think" - oops. and the bad metaphor does a double gainer with a full twist. they weren't thinking, they were acting and solutions fell out of their actions. so you need something that can think as well as act, not just act and hand you its results which you misinterpret as thinking. and you need a better way to say you need something physical instead of just a simulation.
"there are those who think that, far from being an illusion of intelligence, what Dr Dorigo and his fellows have stumbled across may be a good analogue of the process that underlies the real thing." - it's the "there are those that" part that allows you to suggest any fantastical nonsense in the space between it and the period. And then you run off to construct the fantasy:
"the way bees select nesting sites is strikingly like what happens in the brain...explore an area...return to the nest and perform a waggle dance...Substitute nerve cells for bees...electric activity for waggle dances...good description of what happens when a stimulus produces a response..." - i think my brain just asploded. there's a chance that you can stretch this metaphor until it covers training of a neuron, but it's the same chance you have of stretching your rubber underpants until it encompasses your cubicle. but the feedback-induced avalanche in bees is nothing at all like the one-way dendritic stimulus producing a cascade-avalanche response in the soma of a neuron.
"Those who speak of intellectual buzz, then, might be using a metaphor which is more apt" - you have bees in your bonnet, mr. anonymous roman TFA author. that's the most apt metaphor anywhere near your essay.
We're producing reams of data. Its information content is probably log(log(O)) as great as its data content, since log(O) is pretty much how information and data relate in the first place, and we're keeping what seems like exponentially more data than we would have thought to save in the pre-nearly-free-storage days.
Fallacious argument. You pay taxes because you live and work here. You get your choice how to vote for how they're spent, but otherwise the spending and the taxing are not connected. If they were, you probably wouldn't have to pay any taxes on foreign wars, since you're only a very distant beneficiary of their produce, while the executives of Halliburton would be digging up buried caches of confederate money to pay their taxes on this one.
The noose is tightening around Karzai, if recent stories about raids on money-laundering facilities are any indication.
As for your anecdotal evidence, well, democracy is about the people deciding the laws. If they're an Islamic state that's not the best thing, but if they're a peaceful Islamic state it's not the worst thing.
Get an Afghan voter registration card and help them out if you don't like their laws.
If Karzai doesn't like their laws, which apparently he doesn't since he fought this one, then as their leader he should convince the voters to change the laws to fit a less irrational model.
As long as they're effecting change by voting instead of flying planes into other people's buildings, that's a marked improvement.
Depends on which of their beliefs you're stomping on and how you do it.
The Bush administration was uniquely unqualified to be the people to protect this nation from religiously ideological attackers.
And they did a lot to create more problems by not just losing but throwing away the moral high ground to get cowboy political points everywhere they could.
They turned a 2-year conflict into what will probably be a hundred years of war by making it ideological instead of just going in and getting the job done honestly, without cooking up lies so they could attack another country.
If they'd stuck to the secular policing of unwarranted violence, and stayed honest, it would have been over by now. We need to get back to that so we can defeat the violent zealots without creating more of them, not concede to them just because they can still recruit.
How did the pea roots deal with the patient's immune system?
They didn't have to. The immune system is largely inactive in and oblivious to the airspace of the lung. It would only be when the roots breached the walls and entered the blood that the immune system would get wise.
What would have happened if the situation had continued un-treated?
If it had continued to grow and tore a hole in the lung he could have got infection-like symptoms (fevers and aches as the body ramped up production of leukocytes).
If it had died it would become food for bacteria in the air, and it would have decayed in situ. That would have made a gooey mess.
It gave him what TFA called emphysema, or maybe they meant he really has a prior diagnosis for emphysema so he thought this was more of that and didn't do anything with it until it became acute.
He probably would also have contracted (or had and they weren't reporting) a bad case of pneumonia. The more stuff in your lungs that isn't lung, the easier that is.
BTW, BT, DT, and there's not much better in life than to get a result of "it's not cancer it's something weird" when your lungs hurt.
bet the guy has a career awaiting him in PR for a pea-growing company.
Or a lawsuit waiting for him from the trademark-trolling division of Archer-Daniels Midland, for using their logo in his x-rays without paying a royalty.
And you're not "participating in war in Afghanistan", but if you're in the U.S. you're supporting it (financially if not morally) and you're a target for reprisals (you were a target for unprovoked attacks, which is what made it necessary).
The Taliban harbored bin Laden. The U.S. had tried to extradite him for past terrorist attacks around the world, but the Taliban refused multiple times, despite clear evidence of his responsibility for those attacks.
When you harbor a criminal and refuse to give him up to the police and they come in to get him and you attack the police, that makes you a criminal. The right thing to do is to hand over the criminal.
The Taliban were Al Quaeda's friends, supporters, and members, and they are still harboring and fighthing with Al Quaeda. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate the Marines from the Army. It's a niggling distinction in the internal structure of the organization, and of no relevance to the conflict. That extends to separating the military from Americans, something that Al Quaeda didn't do, but the American military tries very hard to do in reverse with the Taliban and Afghan civilians. The fact that it's not done perfectly is what leads mental midgets like Julian Assange to make stupid mistakes like destroying an intelligence infrastructure and endangering Afghan civilians by leaking their names to the enemy.
I think most people would hope for a world like that, but it isn't that way.
There are places where dysfunction in the culture results in the false determination that that place's culture is far superior to its actual worth. That then breeds attempts to impose their decisions on others. And weapons make that easier. Even when those weapons are four commercial airliners and some box-cutters.
Following that, you may see overwhelming application of self-defense. Over time you may lose sight of how it started. That's an enormous mistake.
Not as enormous as thinking you can leverage self-defense in one theater into profitable offense in another, but still a mistake.
you could be punished by doing innocuous things that were wrong as far as Taliban was concerned, but at least you knew what those things are. And you knew that no-one else would harm you for the fear of punishment
So benevolent dictatorship it is! I'll inform Washington.
No, wait. Tell you what. I'll inform them to keep fighting in Afghanistan until the dictatorial powers are exterminated and a real democracy, with real law and order, are instituted.
Then you'll have your semblance of law and order, and I'll have my actual law and order.
The U.S. didn't actually go there to give Afghanistan democracy.
The U.S. went there to protect itself, and in the process the rest of the world, from the people who had taken over there and were participating in attacks on the U.S. and other nations.
Democracy and a shift in the local value system are just part of the means of ensuring the world stays safe from the dangerous people who are still among the non-dangerous people there.
Iraq is an illegal war. Not by any international-law measure, but by American law. It was started by a rogue President who lied to the Congress to get the funding to wage it, and who had already transferred men, money, and material there from the legitimate Afghan conflict without their authority.
They were hailed as saviors in most of the country
Only in their own propaganda.
Look at it from the viewpoint of an Afghan woman.
Wait. Let me put on my burqha and remove 99% of my knowledge and rights. Then I'll be ready for your seminar on the wonderful Taliban.
Not that the Taliban were nice guys, because they certainly weren't. The warlords are worse though.
The warlords weren't a threat to the rest of the world. It was shitty that Reagan pulled us out unceremoniously and left Afghanistan to itself, but when the people there didn't organize a functioning nation and a despotic dictatorship moved in, that made it worse, not better.
Unless say, your house was the one documented in an artillery strike and such a document could give you evidence that it was one specific faction or another that blew up your house and killed your family.
Defendants may be compelled to give up documentation, but if that documentation is secret you'll have to get a judge with the authority to review it to determine if it's information relevant to your case. If you think it was the military who blew up your house and your suspicion is reasonable, a judge with that authority will compel the government to release the information, provided it's possible to do so without revealing something that should be kept secret.
But if it's not the government who blew up your house, but their enemy who did it, then you have no right to compel the government to do anything, but you should ask them to blow up the people who blew up your house. Blowing those people up is their job, and they're very good at it, and will extremely eager to help you.
In either case, when you're talking about the specific coordinates of small arms fire and an air strike from 5+ years ago, there is no risk to current operations.
Maybe. It's also possible that the area is still active, the fact that the military knows about the hidey-hole is still unknown to the enemy, and the only viable route of approach for the predator drone is also still unknown to the enemy. But the greater problem is the release of names of people who help you find the hidey-holes who may actually be part of the enemy's social or terrorist groups. Secrets are kept for decades by default for a reason. If someone looks at it and determines after a couple of years that it's really not supposed to be secret any more, then they can submit it to be declassified. But since there's a war on, that's not a high priority.
Secret classification is one step up from Sensitive (SSNs, addresses, phone numbers, etc...) and it isn't very well controlled. How else do you think some lowly E-3 is going to get his hands on tens of thousands of documents?
In an active theater all of the information at that level of classification is kept in one place so that people who need access to it don't have to go through onerous procedures to get at little bits of it. Putting one lock on the door and only allowing cleared individuals into the documents is usually sufficient. But there are rules about the sort of things you can do with classified information, and copying it to personal recording devices is completely forbidden. In fact, it's generally forbidden to bring a recording or transmitting device into the area with the classified documentation, both because of deliberate copying and because of the chance of inadvertent copying or transmission (you butt-dial your phone and the haji at the falafel shop overhears classified discussions, e.g.).
As for who gets access, there are reasons for certain lowly E-3s to be involved in processing such data (think clerical), so they might have access. But they are briefed on how to handle it just the same as a Colonel would be, and are probably a lot more familiar with the rules since they probably live in that room, practicing the rules daily, whereas the Colonel would come in occasionally to check a fact or hold a meeting. The people who leaked this stuff knew they were breaking the law, and that they were ignoring that there are legal ways to get the bad stuff out to the public while keeping the real secrets secret.
The process for declassifying information that was illegally classified involves making sure that releasing the information does not kill more people.
Assange clearly does not understand, or wilfully breaks, the law regarding what is and is not proper procedure for making, keeping, or declassifying secrets.
People are dying for his ineptitude, his negligence, and his blithe disregard for the results, of which he's no doubt been informed several times before he ever came into possession of any of this material. He should pay for that. If he pays with his life it will be no injustice.
Note to baby anarchists: when the government makes a legal judgment that killing you is legal, then killing you is legal. You may not like it, but it's legal.
Well, first, we're getting the money back. And second, root canal is a whole lot more painful, if lighter on the pocket. You can in fact lose every nickel you ever had and several hundred thousand more and not feel a thing. So equating financial loss with physical pain is never an apt simile.
You'll still get your chance to respond. You just won't get a chance to run away before you're served.
If they knew you were doing something that harmed them and they sued you, you'd get served if they could find you.
This just means the summonses are ready for your name to be filled in.
Then you'll go through the same process as before, getting a lawyer, contacting the court, preparing and presenting your defense, losing, and having to pay compensatory and punitive damages and court costs and plaintiff's legal fees, which actually will be lower because they streamlined the process-server's job.
This method lets the sheriff's deputies fill in the summons with your name, serve you with it, and sieze your infringing loot at the time you're infringing at their festival. It saves a lot of time for them and avoids anyone having to hunt down your rolling bong of a van. (Of course, if you whip out your perfect fake ID, and have bogus tags on the Mystery Machine, you're still golden, bra.)
And making the law work isn't unethical. What's unethical is stealing their trademark or violating the conditions of the ticket you bought to enter their rented property by setting up a concession without their permission.
The law is a cool MMORPG (minus the O) when you get into it.
Slashdot Mirror
/. suffers tacky tabloid spread of hype.
OSPF weights each hop according to speed. The exceptions to its results are rare, but definable, and other routing protocols are used where they're expected.
You mean to say that this thing is measured as outperforming non-statistical recursive routing methods?
"good at solving" - define "good" here, and how does it compare to a directed algorithm
"good at thinking up solutions" - wait, this is different. now they're not solving, they're thinking-up solutions. instead of being dumb actors with rule-based behaviors and reacting to external stimuli, they're now using their own internal models to plan how they will route themselves. (no, it isn't, i'm being sarcastic, the author just used a bad metaphor that inadvertently inverted the whole premise of the experiment.)
"working on something that can act as well as think" - oops. and the bad metaphor does a double gainer with a full twist. they weren't thinking, they were acting and solutions fell out of their actions. so you need something that can think as well as act, not just act and hand you its results which you misinterpret as thinking. and you need a better way to say you need something physical instead of just a simulation.
"there are those who think that, far from being an illusion of intelligence, what Dr Dorigo and his fellows have stumbled across may be a good analogue of the process that underlies the real thing." - it's the "there are those that" part that allows you to suggest any fantastical nonsense in the space between it and the period. And then you run off to construct the fantasy:
"the way bees select nesting sites is strikingly like what happens in the brain...explore an area...return to the nest and perform a waggle dance...Substitute nerve cells for bees...electric activity for waggle dances...good description of what happens when a stimulus produces a response..." - i think my brain just asploded. there's a chance that you can stretch this metaphor until it covers training of a neuron, but it's the same chance you have of stretching your rubber underpants until it encompasses your cubicle. but the feedback-induced avalanche in bees is nothing at all like the one-way dendritic stimulus producing a cascade-avalanche response in the soma of a neuron.
"Those who speak of intellectual buzz, then, might be using a metaphor which is more apt" - you have bees in your bonnet, mr. anonymous roman TFA author. that's the most apt metaphor anywhere near your essay.
Or is that Information Data?
Whichever, Schmidt has it wrong.
We're producing reams of data. Its information content is probably log(log(O)) as great as its data content, since log(O) is pretty much how information and data relate in the first place, and we're keeping what seems like exponentially more data than we would have thought to save in the pre-nearly-free-storage days.
What I do want is to stop paying taxes
Fallacious argument. You pay taxes because you live and work here. You get your choice how to vote for how they're spent, but otherwise the spending and the taxing are not connected. If they were, you probably wouldn't have to pay any taxes on foreign wars, since you're only a very distant beneficiary of their produce, while the executives of Halliburton would be digging up buried caches of confederate money to pay their taxes on this one.
The noose is tightening around Karzai, if recent stories about raids on money-laundering facilities are any indication.
As for your anecdotal evidence, well, democracy is about the people deciding the laws. If they're an Islamic state that's not the best thing, but if they're a peaceful Islamic state it's not the worst thing.
Get an Afghan voter registration card and help them out if you don't like their laws.
If Karzai doesn't like their laws, which apparently he doesn't since he fought this one, then as their leader he should convince the voters to change the laws to fit a less irrational model.
As long as they're effecting change by voting instead of flying planes into other people's buildings, that's a marked improvement.
Depends on which of their beliefs you're stomping on and how you do it.
The Bush administration was uniquely unqualified to be the people to protect this nation from religiously ideological attackers.
And they did a lot to create more problems by not just losing but throwing away the moral high ground to get cowboy political points everywhere they could.
They turned a 2-year conflict into what will probably be a hundred years of war by making it ideological instead of just going in and getting the job done honestly, without cooking up lies so they could attack another country.
If they'd stuck to the secular policing of unwarranted violence, and stayed honest, it would have been over by now. We need to get back to that so we can defeat the violent zealots without creating more of them, not concede to them just because they can still recruit.
So a contest is just like a job.
I figured as much.
How did the pea roots deal with the patient's immune system?
They didn't have to. The immune system is largely inactive in and oblivious to the airspace of the lung. It would only be when the roots breached the walls and entered the blood that the immune system would get wise.
What would have happened if the situation had continued un-treated?
If it had continued to grow and tore a hole in the lung he could have got infection-like symptoms (fevers and aches as the body ramped up production of leukocytes).
If it had died it would become food for bacteria in the air, and it would have decayed in situ. That would have made a gooey mess.
It gave him what TFA called emphysema, or maybe they meant he really has a prior diagnosis for emphysema so he thought this was more of that and didn't do anything with it until it became acute.
He probably would also have contracted (or had and they weren't reporting) a bad case of pneumonia. The more stuff in your lungs that isn't lung, the easier that is.
BTW, BT, DT, and there's not much better in life than to get a result of "it's not cancer it's something weird" when your lungs hurt.
bet the guy has a career awaiting him in PR for a pea-growing company.
Or a lawsuit waiting for him from the trademark-trolling division of Archer-Daniels Midland, for using their logo in his x-rays without paying a royalty.
Lung....
Lunnnnnnggggg....
Lovely, woody word....lunnnnnggg...
BrainFuck.Net FTW.
You're welcome.
And you're not "participating in war in Afghanistan", but if you're in the U.S. you're supporting it (financially if not morally) and you're a target for reprisals (you were a target for unprovoked attacks, which is what made it necessary).
The Taliban harbored bin Laden. The U.S. had tried to extradite him for past terrorist attacks around the world, but the Taliban refused multiple times, despite clear evidence of his responsibility for those attacks.
When you harbor a criminal and refuse to give him up to the police and they come in to get him and you attack the police, that makes you a criminal. The right thing to do is to hand over the criminal.
The Taliban were Al Quaeda's friends, supporters, and members, and they are still harboring and fighthing with Al Quaeda. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate the Marines from the Army. It's a niggling distinction in the internal structure of the organization, and of no relevance to the conflict. That extends to separating the military from Americans, something that Al Quaeda didn't do, but the American military tries very hard to do in reverse with the Taliban and Afghan civilians. The fact that it's not done perfectly is what leads mental midgets like Julian Assange to make stupid mistakes like destroying an intelligence infrastructure and endangering Afghan civilians by leaking their names to the enemy.
You mean the "cooling off" period was ended by Bush2. Because it's Obama who's ending the Iraq war.
never on the scale of a war.
I think most people would hope for a world like that, but it isn't that way.
There are places where dysfunction in the culture results in the false determination that that place's culture is far superior to its actual worth. That then breeds attempts to impose their decisions on others. And weapons make that easier. Even when those weapons are four commercial airliners and some box-cutters.
Following that, you may see overwhelming application of self-defense. Over time you may lose sight of how it started. That's an enormous mistake.
Not as enormous as thinking you can leverage self-defense in one theater into profitable offense in another, but still a mistake.
you could be punished by doing innocuous things that were wrong as far as Taliban was concerned, but at least you knew what those things are. And you knew that no-one else would harm you for the fear of punishment
So benevolent dictatorship it is! I'll inform Washington.
No, wait. Tell you what. I'll inform them to keep fighting in Afghanistan until the dictatorial powers are exterminated and a real democracy, with real law and order, are instituted.
Then you'll have your semblance of law and order, and I'll have my actual law and order.
The U.S. didn't actually go there to give Afghanistan democracy.
The U.S. went there to protect itself, and in the process the rest of the world, from the people who had taken over there and were participating in attacks on the U.S. and other nations.
Democracy and a shift in the local value system are just part of the means of ensuring the world stays safe from the dangerous people who are still among the non-dangerous people there.
Iraq is an illegal war. Not by any international-law measure, but by American law. It was started by a rogue President who lied to the Congress to get the funding to wage it, and who had already transferred men, money, and material there from the legitimate Afghan conflict without their authority.
Interesting piece of moral equivalence, inasmuch as it lacks the morals.
They were hailed as saviors in most of the country
Only in their own propaganda.
Look at it from the viewpoint of an Afghan woman.
Wait. Let me put on my burqha and remove 99% of my knowledge and rights. Then I'll be ready for your seminar on the wonderful Taliban.
Not that the Taliban were nice guys, because they certainly weren't. The warlords are worse though.
The warlords weren't a threat to the rest of the world. It was shitty that Reagan pulled us out unceremoniously and left Afghanistan to itself, but when the people there didn't organize a functioning nation and a despotic dictatorship moved in, that made it worse, not better.
Unless say, your house was the one documented in an artillery strike and such a document could give you evidence that it was one specific faction or another that blew up your house and killed your family.
Defendants may be compelled to give up documentation, but if that documentation is secret you'll have to get a judge with the authority to review it to determine if it's information relevant to your case. If you think it was the military who blew up your house and your suspicion is reasonable, a judge with that authority will compel the government to release the information, provided it's possible to do so without revealing something that should be kept secret.
But if it's not the government who blew up your house, but their enemy who did it, then you have no right to compel the government to do anything, but you should ask them to blow up the people who blew up your house. Blowing those people up is their job, and they're very good at it, and will extremely eager to help you.
In either case, when you're talking about the specific coordinates of small arms fire and an air strike from 5+ years ago, there is no risk to current operations.
Maybe. It's also possible that the area is still active, the fact that the military knows about the hidey-hole is still unknown to the enemy, and the only viable route of approach for the predator drone is also still unknown to the enemy. But the greater problem is the release of names of people who help you find the hidey-holes who may actually be part of the enemy's social or terrorist groups. Secrets are kept for decades by default for a reason. If someone looks at it and determines after a couple of years that it's really not supposed to be secret any more, then they can submit it to be declassified. But since there's a war on, that's not a high priority.
Secret classification is one step up from Sensitive (SSNs, addresses, phone numbers, etc...) and it isn't very well controlled. How else do you think some lowly E-3 is going to get his hands on tens of thousands of documents?
In an active theater all of the information at that level of classification is kept in one place so that people who need access to it don't have to go through onerous procedures to get at little bits of it. Putting one lock on the door and only allowing cleared individuals into the documents is usually sufficient. But there are rules about the sort of things you can do with classified information, and copying it to personal recording devices is completely forbidden. In fact, it's generally forbidden to bring a recording or transmitting device into the area with the classified documentation, both because of deliberate copying and because of the chance of inadvertent copying or transmission (you butt-dial your phone and the haji at the falafel shop overhears classified discussions, e.g.).
As for who gets access, there are reasons for certain lowly E-3s to be involved in processing such data (think clerical), so they might have access. But they are briefed on how to handle it just the same as a Colonel would be, and are probably a lot more familiar with the rules since they probably live in that room, practicing the rules daily, whereas the Colonel would come in occasionally to check a fact or hold a meeting. The people who leaked this stuff knew they were breaking the law, and that they were ignoring that there are legal ways to get the bad stuff out to the public while keeping the real secrets secret.
The process for declassifying information that was illegally classified involves making sure that releasing the information does not kill more people.
Assange clearly does not understand, or wilfully breaks, the law regarding what is and is not proper procedure for making, keeping, or declassifying secrets.
People are dying for his ineptitude, his negligence, and his blithe disregard for the results, of which he's no doubt been informed several times before he ever came into possession of any of this material. He should pay for that. If he pays with his life it will be no injustice.
They both should, IMO. I don't understand what sort of deal he's made with the Obama administration that's kept him out of jail.
Note to baby anarchists: when the government makes a legal judgment that killing you is legal, then killing you is legal. You may not like it, but it's legal.
Now go play.
The only people with anything to gain from the release of these documents are Assange and the Taliban.
Between whom it is no longer possible to find a distinguishing value.
But it prefers warmth, light breezes, and endless beaches of sugary sand.
Well, first, we're getting the money back. And second, root canal is a whole lot more painful, if lighter on the pocket. You can in fact lose every nickel you ever had and several hundred thousand more and not feel a thing. So equating financial loss with physical pain is never an apt simile.
But thanks for proving my point.
You'll still get your chance to respond. You just won't get a chance to run away before you're served.
If they knew you were doing something that harmed them and they sued you, you'd get served if they could find you.
This just means the summonses are ready for your name to be filled in.
Then you'll go through the same process as before, getting a lawyer, contacting the court, preparing and presenting your defense, losing, and having to pay compensatory and punitive damages and court costs and plaintiff's legal fees, which actually will be lower because they streamlined the process-server's job.
This method lets the sheriff's deputies fill in the summons with your name, serve you with it, and sieze your infringing loot at the time you're infringing at their festival. It saves a lot of time for them and avoids anyone having to hunt down your rolling bong of a van. (Of course, if you whip out your perfect fake ID, and have bogus tags on the Mystery Machine, you're still golden, bra.)
And making the law work isn't unethical. What's unethical is stealing their trademark or violating the conditions of the ticket you bought to enter their rented property by setting up a concession without their permission.
The law is a cool MMORPG (minus the O) when you get into it.