its a social club. if i move to a new city which i often do, i join the local chapter and find people to hang around with. joining mensa is one way for interacting with people of similar standing...its not the fact most mensa members are more or less intelligent, its more towards the fact that you can interact with people who might share similar views. i've dropped my membership numerous times and rejoined it plenty of times so i'm a partial member i guess...
hear hear...another idea is to buy the cardboard sticky traps made in china which cost like 10 cents each. work extremely well and the price cant be beat.
Alternatively, one could say that generativist linguists don't know anything about connectionism and current cognitive science otherwise they wouldn't still be flogging universal grammar to the masses. And , I think you'll find that this line of research dates from the mid-80s, whereas Chomsky has been working on his research program since 1957.
On the subject of phonotactics and phonology, how much difference is there? Optimality Theory seems primarily to account for phonotactics, at least the markedness constraints do(Optimality Theory is the current research program in phonology cf Prince and Smolensky 1993). In fact, it's debatable to what extent we need any innate phonology, and to what extent inductive learning of phonotactics is all we need. Certainly the case for any innate specification is a lot weaker for phonology than for syntax.
Finally, why should we prefer domain specific learning devices over domain general ones? In terms of theoretical simplicity, is it not better to start from the basis of domain general ones and get as far as we can get with that? In that case, I'd say that this line of research has already got us quite far.
For anybody interested, I would try googling on Jeff Elman and see what he has to say. Also google on the references he supplies at the bottom of his papers, since many of them are available online.
One hypothesis, native language neural commitment (NLNC), proposes that language learning produces dedicated neural networks that code the patterns of native-language speech. As these networks develop, they make it easier for new speech elements and patterns to be learned if they are consistent with the existing patterns, but place constraints on the learning of foreign-language patterns. NLNC might explain the closing of the 'sensitive period' for language learning; once a certain amount of learning has occurred, neural commitment interferes with the learning of new languages so they cannot be learned as easily.
im wondering if it would. it would seem that if you do it quickly enough (real time) and allow people to put it in cars, we should be able to cut down on driving vehicle accidents in areas where a bunch of cars have piled up on a highway in dense fog.
I sell DVRs based on a CDROM ISO image of debian linux (boots sraight from ROM, so no problems with disks failing etc) and custom software which runs on top of linux. i use a modified BTTV based card (or a hardware ASIC for more than 4 cameras) with several patches to the regular bttv drivers for multiple inputs and a java application to handle the parsing and recording. If youre looking for unix based DVRs with multiple cameras i can sell you a unit for upto 64 cameras at rates of up to 2000+ fps.
i'd be interested in developing a nav system for ships (as i imagine would most ppl on/.)... the real problem is not that its hard to develop but there are hurdles which are difficult or impossible to overcome. 1] no knowledge of the business. without actually living aboard a ship and understanding everything necessary, its impossible to develop a *good* nav/docking system. 2] no ships to play with. without actual hardware, developing good systems is impossible. some degree of trial and error with an actual ship to play with is required. 3] no guaranteed customers. without money, you cant make things happen. not a lot -- just enough to pay for the hardware and a tiny bit for labour. so basically, unless the person you know is ready to foot the bill (like the Us navy was) and dedicate a ship for a coupla months for development, good systems will never be developed.
no..the simplest and easiest explanation is that newtonian gravity works differently in different galaxies. we only have one model to go on -- our solar system with only 1 (fixed) gravitational constant for this galaxy. theres no reason gravitational constants couldnt vary across galaxies...ergo altering the galaxies behaviour. we havent really experimented with gravity enough to know how it behaves. electromagnetic forces can be varied depending on location as we drive across town (since we are on a planet with lots and lots of RF noise)..why not gravity ? its a force, therefore it (probably) must work the same way. yes, im aware we have no idea whether any "gravity transmitters" exist or not...but consider the possibilities.
good god man. just buy a $600 BASIC programmable robot arm off the shelf and have it do all that. you just have to program it once and let it work over and over again. theres really no need for you to be doing stupid shit like this for hours on end. its 2004. heres some: http://www.lynxmotion.com/Category.aspx?Categor yID =25 Lynx 6 Robotic Arm Combo Kit for PC (serial port) Description - Easy! Windows program included; no programming required. This product includes everything you need to control the arm from a personal computer. RoboMotion (L6) is included for advanced control using an X, Y, Z grid for gripper positioning. Part# [ L6AC-KT ] $355.32
or try http://www.robix.com/default.html for a better $550 robot arm which can do chemistry as well. http://www.robix.com/chemist_project0.html
i released a (crappy) doc reader (there have been better ones since) for the AportisDOC standard for e-books under the GPL a loong time ago. http://zurk.sourceforge.net/zdoc.zip The DOc format is open, can be extended to be secure and is already out there...theres no real need for yet another crappy e-book standard. we already have one.
To answer your question, two years ago i started thinking along these lines. i went a bit further than most...i sat down and implemented tools to do exactly this. I developed them for my own internal use since i build a wide variety of one-off platforms and i manufacture embedded systems. i still use them two years later because nothing even comes close to the power i get from my platform and the speed of development.
To what extend is there a limit to the set of possible software architectures based on the modeling tools' abstractions and UI paradigms?
1. If developed correctly there should be no limits whatsoever. In practice, my tools limit me in two ways. [a] They are slower than traditional approaches due to the overhead of interpretation (even with precompiling). [b] Less data can be handled dynamically and real time data streams are hard to handle. sometimes working with delegating real time to a dedicated C program and letting is talk in non real time to the tools is best.
2a. What is the scope of the type of platforms abstracted away by this tool?
any platforms can be abstracted as long as they fit into the traditional input->compute->output paradigm (which mostly all do, since everything in computer systems uses a turing machine model. You are using a CPU after all).
2b. Can I design stand-alone, UI applications, embedded software, and n-tier J2EE systems with the same tools?
i've designed and implemented (well actually designed only since my tools do the implementation for me) web based shopping carts, n-tier database/app server backed load balanced financial apps for brokers, stand alone UI applications, embedded systems (not just software..entire systems with hardware interfacing) with my system.
2c. How tractable is the problem of designing design tools flexible enough to encompass all possible development platforms?
its not that difficult. its a pain when handling hardware devices but other than the obvious pain of writing drivers, its not hard. i've run my tools on AIX, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, BSD, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, DOS, QNX, Novell, Windows 2000/NT/XP, AS/400s.
So it is doable. will everyone do it ? nope. it takes time and money to do it and no one has the time or money. its a hard sell to develop this for businesses. i developed it because i need it (and it continues to be developed and used 2 years later..chances are it will take 20+ years before it has everything i want in it). will someone pay me money for it ? not on your life. on the other hand the systems i develop with it do sell. whats ironic is that if i sold the system to my customers they could implement the same platforms i sell them at a fraction of the cost of each individual unit. but i know i can never sell it to them since they'd never buy it.
especially as some of the solutions in the paper state that 60 agents should attend and 40 should be left home. anyone want to bet that 40% of all commuters will NOT want to stay home 7 days a week ?
so you have $15K/yr to work with. spend $5000 of that in 10 $500 projects on rentacoder.com and your should be able to find 10 lower-than-your-bottom-of-the-rung people to do your work. even if 9 out of 10 dont work out...you still manage to get the job done. hell $500 is a princely salary which will prolly buy you a Ph.D. in english at rentacoder.com who is living in india/china/russia/malaysia etc. and you get $10000 change/yr for paying down the credit card debt. With outsoucing there is NO lower limit. theres always slave labour willing to work at 50 cents an hour if you need it. thats capitalism.
actually that manna system is bloody impressive. i could probably build it given enough funding...any retail/convenience store owners here willing to spend $5K or so to build this manna system ?
hire a consultant using 50% of their current salary to build you a system for automating the work they do. (or alternatively outsource the work). heck even i'd be able to automate it for $27K.
now you have 27K free to add to your credit cards and voila -- youre profitable!
interesting. different languages have different approaches to being read ? anyone want to base an OCR out of this ?
Re:NDAs are a necessary evil to some environments
on
The Cult of the NDA
·
· Score: 1
how do you sell ? i have a product which i built from a shoestring budget and im looking at finding marketing/sales channels...how did you sell your product once you have a working demo ?
hmm...well most scientists and researchers dont need motivation to go out and do research...as long as food/housing etc is provided we do it anyway. even if the majority stagnates, they will eventually get bored and go out to do *something*. so basically, we just need to convince everyone to go on welfare and the government to hand out paychecks.
i dunno. smaller you go the more force you can apply with less brittleness specially at the nano level. ants raise many times their body weight while humans cant.
err...yes. but consider this: the human brain evolved over 3 BILLION years. we're loosing to a machine thats been designed and built and improved over a period far exceeding our civilization. its not a glob of salty fat -- its a three billion year old machine. theres a difference. if the brain can do it, we may take another billion years to figure out how to do it. reverse engineering gives us a speedup -- but by how much ? and who is going to invest those trillions of dollars to reverse engineer the brains processing ability in these days of short term profits ?
Slashdot Mirror
have a need. solved it.
its a social club. if i move to a new city which i often do, i join the local chapter and find people to hang around with.
joining mensa is one way for interacting with people of similar standing...its not the fact most mensa members are more or less intelligent, its more towards the fact that you can interact with people who might share similar views.
i've dropped my membership numerous times and rejoined it plenty of times so i'm a partial member i guess...
hear hear...another idea is to buy the cardboard sticky traps made in china which cost like 10 cents each. work extremely well and the price cant be beat.
Alternatively, one could say that generativist linguists don't know anything about connectionism and current cognitive science otherwise they wouldn't still be flogging universal grammar to the masses. And , I think you'll find that this line of research dates from the mid-80s, whereas Chomsky has been working on his research program since 1957. On the subject of phonotactics and phonology, how much difference is there? Optimality Theory seems primarily to account for phonotactics, at least the markedness constraints do(Optimality Theory is the current research program in phonology cf Prince and Smolensky 1993). In fact, it's debatable to what extent we need any innate phonology, and to what extent inductive learning of phonotactics is all we need. Certainly the case for any innate specification is a lot weaker for phonology than for syntax. Finally, why should we prefer domain specific learning devices over domain general ones? In terms of theoretical simplicity, is it not better to start from the basis of domain general ones and get as far as we can get with that? In that case, I'd say that this line of research has already got us quite far. For anybody interested, I would try googling on Jeff Elman and see what he has to say. Also google on the references he supplies at the bottom of his papers, since many of them are available online. One hypothesis, native language neural commitment (NLNC), proposes that language learning produces dedicated neural networks that code the patterns of native-language speech. As these networks develop, they make it easier for new speech elements and patterns to be learned if they are consistent with the existing patterns, but place constraints on the learning of foreign-language patterns. NLNC might explain the closing of the 'sensitive period' for language learning; once a certain amount of learning has occurred, neural commitment interferes with the learning of new languages so they cannot be learned as easily.
get a GPS 18 OEM unit. its RS232, and WAAS enabled and offers the same features as the GPS35, which is now close to being obsoleted.
im wondering if it would. it would seem that if you do it quickly enough (real time) and allow people to put it in cars, we should be able to cut down on driving vehicle accidents in areas where a bunch of cars have piled up on a highway in dense fog.
I sell DVRs based on a CDROM ISO image of debian linux (boots sraight from ROM, so no problems with disks failing etc) and custom software which runs on top of linux.
i use a modified BTTV based card (or a hardware ASIC for more than 4 cameras) with several patches to the regular bttv drivers for multiple inputs and a java application to handle the parsing and recording.
If youre looking for unix based DVRs with multiple cameras i can sell you a unit for upto 64 cameras at rates of up to 2000+ fps.
i'd be interested in developing a nav system for ships (as i imagine would most ppl on /.)...
the real problem is not that its hard to develop but there are hurdles which are difficult or impossible to overcome.
1] no knowledge of the business. without actually living aboard a ship and understanding everything necessary, its impossible to develop a *good* nav/docking system.
2] no ships to play with. without actual hardware, developing good systems is impossible. some degree of trial and error with an actual ship to play with is required.
3] no guaranteed customers. without money, you cant make things happen. not a lot -- just enough to pay for the hardware and a tiny bit for labour.
so basically, unless the person you know is ready to foot the bill (like the Us navy was) and dedicate a ship for a coupla months for development, good systems will never be developed.
neato.
no..the simplest and easiest explanation is that newtonian gravity works differently in different galaxies. we only have one model to go on -- our solar system with only 1 (fixed) gravitational constant for this galaxy. theres no reason gravitational constants couldnt vary across galaxies...ergo altering the galaxies behaviour. ..why not gravity ? its a force, therefore it (probably) must work the same way. yes, im aware we have no idea whether any "gravity transmitters" exist or not...but consider the possibilities.
we havent really experimented with gravity enough to know how it behaves. electromagnetic forces can be varied depending on location as we drive across town (since we are on a planet with lots and lots of RF noise)
get it from :
http://www.aerogel.com/index.htm
$20/square foot blanket.
good god man. just buy a $600 BASIC programmable robot arm off the shelf and have it do all that. :r yID =25
you just have to program it once and let it work over and over again. theres really no need for you to be doing stupid shit like this for hours on end. its 2004.
heres some
http://www.lynxmotion.com/Category.aspx?Catego
Lynx 6 Robotic Arm Combo Kit for PC (serial port)
Description -
Easy! Windows program included; no programming required.
This product includes everything you need to control the arm from a personal computer.
RoboMotion (L6) is included for advanced control using an X, Y, Z grid for gripper positioning.
Part# [ L6AC-KT ] $355.32
or try
http://www.robix.com/default.html
for a better $550 robot arm which can do chemistry as well.
http://www.robix.com/chemist_project0.html
i released a (crappy) doc reader (there have been better ones since) for the AportisDOC standard for e-books under the GPL a loong time ago. ...theres no real need for yet another crappy e-book standard. we already have one.
http://zurk.sourceforge.net/zdoc.zip
The DOc format is open, can be extended to be secure and is already out there
To answer your question, two years ago i started thinking along these lines. i went a bit further than most...i sat down and implemented tools to do exactly this. I developed them for my own internal use since i build a wide variety of one-off platforms and i manufacture embedded systems. i still use them two years later because nothing even comes close to the power i get from my platform and the speed of development.
To what extend is there a limit to the set of possible software architectures based on the modeling tools' abstractions and UI paradigms?
1. If developed correctly there should be no limits whatsoever. In practice, my tools limit me in two ways.
[a] They are slower than traditional approaches due to the overhead of interpretation (even with precompiling).
[b] Less data can be handled dynamically and real time data streams are hard to handle. sometimes working with delegating real time to a dedicated C program and letting is talk in non real time to the tools is best.
2a. What is the scope of the type of platforms abstracted away by this tool?
any platforms can be abstracted as long as they fit into the traditional input->compute->output paradigm (which mostly all do, since everything in computer systems uses a turing machine model. You are using a CPU after all).
2b. Can I design stand-alone, UI applications, embedded software, and n-tier J2EE systems with the same tools?
i've designed and implemented (well actually designed only since my tools do the implementation for me) web based shopping carts, n-tier database/app server backed load balanced financial apps for brokers, stand alone UI applications, embedded systems (not just software..entire systems with hardware interfacing) with my system.
2c. How tractable is the problem of designing design tools flexible enough to encompass all possible development platforms?
its not that difficult. its a pain when handling hardware devices but other than the obvious pain of writing drivers, its not hard. i've run my tools on AIX, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, BSD, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, DOS, QNX, Novell, Windows 2000/NT/XP, AS/400s.
So it is doable. will everyone do it ? nope. it takes time and money to do it and no one has the time or money. its a hard sell to develop this for businesses. i developed it because i need it (and it continues to be developed and used 2 years later..chances are it will take 20+ years before it has everything i want in it). will someone pay me money for it ? not on your life. on the other hand the systems i develop with it do sell. whats ironic is that if i sold the system to my customers they could implement the same platforms i sell them at a fraction of the cost of each individual unit. but i know i can never sell it to them since they'd never buy it.
especially as some of the solutions in the paper state that 60 agents should attend and 40 should be left home.
anyone want to bet that 40% of all commuters will NOT want to stay home 7 days a week ?
so you have $15K/yr to work with. ...you still manage to get the job done. hell $500 is a princely salary which will prolly buy you a Ph.D. in english at rentacoder.com who is living in india/china/russia/malaysia etc.
spend $5000 of that in 10 $500 projects on rentacoder.com and your should be able to find 10 lower-than-your-bottom-of-the-rung people to do your work. even if 9 out of 10 dont work out
and you get $10000 change/yr for paying down the credit card debt.
With outsoucing there is NO lower limit. theres always slave labour willing to work at 50 cents an hour if you need it.
thats capitalism.
actually that manna system is bloody impressive. i could probably build it given enough funding...any retail/convenience store owners here willing to spend $5K or so to build this manna system ?
here's how you do it.
fire your 3 workers.
hire a consultant using 50% of their current salary to build you a system for automating the work they do. (or alternatively outsource the work). heck even i'd be able to automate it for $27K.
now you have 27K free to add to your credit cards and voila -- youre profitable!
welcome to capitalism. we innovate. we survive.
disk space is cheap but processor load is not.
doing that will likely result in high CPU load which tips off your cracker.
interesting. different languages have different approaches to being read ?
anyone want to base an OCR out of this ?
how do you sell ?
i have a product which i built from a shoestring budget and im looking at finding marketing/sales channels...how did you sell your product once you have a working demo ?
hmm...well most scientists and researchers dont need motivation to go out and do research...as long as food/housing etc is provided we do it anyway.
even if the majority stagnates, they will eventually get bored and go out to do *something*.
so basically, we just need to convince everyone to go on welfare and the government to hand out paychecks.
bah. if we are part of the evolutionary process, then we arent anymore in control of evolution than an ant is in charge of building mount everest.
i dunno. smaller you go the more force you can apply with less brittleness specially at the nano level. ants raise many times their body weight while humans cant.
err...yes. but consider this :
the human brain evolved over 3 BILLION years. we're loosing to a machine thats been designed and built and improved over a period far exceeding our civilization. its not a glob of salty fat -- its a three billion year old machine. theres a difference.
if the brain can do it, we may take another billion years to figure out how to do it. reverse engineering gives us a speedup -- but by how much ? and who is going to invest those trillions of dollars to reverse engineer the brains processing ability in these days of short term profits ?