Not only are you ignorant of the topic at hand, but your web pages show that you make foolish, pseudo-intellectual tripe a hobby.
I suggest that you first get help as you are likely suffering from several symptoms of mental illness under DSM-IV. Concomitant with recovery it may be in your interest to open a textbook.
If you had watched the video you would have realized that the beliefs your are attributing to Minsky are completely wrong.
And by the way, even John McCarthy (inventor, lisp; nonmonotonic logic) doesn't believe the straw man you've built here.
You'd have a stronger argument, say, in regard to the work of Herbert Simon and Alan Newell - but Newell admits in "Unified Theories of Cognition" that SOAR wasn't as successful as they would have liked it to be.
There's a lot of interesting work beyond what appears to be nonsense created by quacks, as perceived by ignorant reactionaries.
Given that the license is vague, evidence would have to be presented showing that the author was presenting it differently with respect to the new "change".
Darren does pretty much all of the development on ipfilter, so pissing him off on such a minor point probably isn't a good idea unless there are people waiting in line to develop that project.
Softupdates for a time was under a restrictive license and available in FreeBSD.
It basically comes down to Darren wanting limited control over the IPFilter project. I haven't seen him say anything adverse to distribution, just that he'd like to be the one who controls the direction of the project.
Almost all the code was written by him anyway with a few patches from other people, relative.
After the first book the plot descends into soap opera whining. On memory, the first follows a standard fantasy plot arc, but the characters by that point aren't annoying to the point of nausea as in the later books by dint of initial unacquaintance with the characters, which eventually becomes very clear with much repetition.
But then if I read the first again, today, I'd probably find it repulsive. After all, I did read it when I was 10 years old, right after reading the midkemia series, and the year before tackling the lord of the rings. I've pretty much given up on fantasy by now; not however implying that I've been able to find and enjoy new novels in other genres. I'm pretty much disgusted at this point. Nicholas Monsarrat's The Cruel Sea is the last novel I've enjoyed: 3 years ago!
Chicken and the egg. Kids who do not obtain an education do not think for themselves, except perhaps by having a vague, anti-authority, cynical attitude.
The people who "stand in line" don't go on to higher education: they work in dead end manual labor and service jobs and can't initially differentiate astrology from astronomy, parasychology from psychology, or neo-feminist dialectic comparative literature from empirical, verifiable sciences.
Re:I'm afraid it's gonna suck.
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 1
"sarcasm and quirkiness"
Yeah, we all know David Spade is never guilty of that.
Re:Linux Replaces Tom Cruise!
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, sure. Just ask George Lucas: Jar Jar cost 30 million dollars.
"
Do you wish that you could regain the helm at Origin once again?
We fantasized about buying Origin back from EA. I feel we could have made it run much better. However as Joseph Campbell says in Hero With A Thousand Faces: "A schism in the body social, will not be resolved by any scheme of a return to the good old days (archaism), or by programs guaranteed to render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the most realistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating elements. Only birth can conquer death-the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new." [Yeah. What he said.]
"
The knowledge of Google that I've held has come primarily from "The Anatomy of a Large Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine", written by the founders of google in which they describe PageRank(tm)(patent). In it they describe their normalization and dampening and include a statement that "There are many other details which are beyond the scope of this paper".
Note also that your use of the word "size" is nearly congruent to my use of the word "authority".
In context of this slashdot article I stated that the function of the Journal was fundamentally different; i.e., that the journal operates in a pre-citation state by expert evaluation of content, which also implicitly includes categorization by specialization of specific journals.
In both posts it was made clear that new papers would not have the citations needed. Graphing citations as a function of time would show slow acceleration to a point of initial visibility.
Karma then is your so called answer. Unfortunately it suffers from "chicken or the egg" and would establish an elite group with unfair direct power over others.
The journal accepts or rejects on content by a standard set directly by correspondence (to them and to rivals) and indirectly by subscriber rate. They are therefore vulnerable to markets as a visible entity, whereas karma structure would not be.
I could list reasons all day, but it doesn't seem like you understand.
Using karma based on authority ranking would not work. Using karma based on random allocation would not work. Using karma based on unlimited or limited citation count would not work. Only in duplicating the journal would it work.
No, it would not give us our peer review. Open, noisy networks driven by karma would suffer from tyranny of the majority rather than duplicate the functionality implicit in human organized peer groups. The perceived metric solution of course is the authority rating. However, that too suffers from tyranny of the majority, where demonstrable specialist knowledge is instead required.
Further, specialization in a subset of one field often does not translate into another and therefore would require explicit categorization or a human controlled permission system, therefore becoming a poor duplicate of the peer review system.
These mechanisms would be vulnerable to initial feedback, tampering, duplication of human effort in ranking, interference from past ranking not viable in the present, and global maxima conspiring to prevent new entry where maxima is limited on one hand and unfair advantage in unlimited maxima in the single case, on the other.
The superior example extant seems to be <a href="http://citeseer.nj.nec.com">citeseer.nj.n ec.com</a>; and while it excels in its problem set, it is operating in a completely different domain than the peer reviewed journal.
More specifically and to expand on my previous assertion: The journal does not only offer peer review by those of real repute, but it offers organization, summarization, filtering, and real standards, accountable to people with experience and knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Solipsism or too much Hilary Putnam.
http://www.inria.fr/actualites/colloques/1999/COLL OQUIUM990914-fra.html
Not only are you ignorant of the topic at hand, but your web pages show that you make foolish, pseudo-intellectual tripe a hobby.
I suggest that you first get help as you are likely suffering from several symptoms of mental illness under DSM-IV. Concomitant with recovery it may be in your interest to open a textbook.
If you had watched the video you would have realized that the beliefs your are attributing to Minsky are completely wrong.
And by the way, even John McCarthy (inventor, lisp; nonmonotonic logic) doesn't believe the straw man you've built here.
You'd have a stronger argument, say, in regard to the work of Herbert Simon and Alan Newell - but Newell admits in "Unified Theories of Cognition" that SOAR wasn't as successful as they would have liked it to be.
There's a lot of interesting work beyond what appears to be nonsense created by quacks, as perceived by ignorant reactionaries.
www.kmeleon.org. Uses mozilla, fast interface. 0.4 includes one of the newer builds, but you can replace the binaries with nightlies if you want.
Yes, it's only for windows.
That doesn't matter. This isn't GNU.
Given that the license is vague, evidence would have to be presented showing that the author was presenting it differently with respect to the new "change".
Darren does pretty much all of the development on ipfilter, so pissing him off on such a minor point probably isn't a good idea unless there are people waiting in line to develop that project.
You can download ipfilter and install it whether or not it is included in the OS by default.
IPFilter isn't part of the operating system, at least as far as FreeBSD goes.
I don't care for religious philosophies and would rather each his own.
http://www.obfuscation.org/ipf/B SD _Basics.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/04/25/Free
http://netfilter.samba.org/netfilter-faq.html
http://netfilter.samba.org/unreliable-guides/
"ipfw: open source but not BSD licensed"
That's weird, go look at the source files. It looks BSD licensed to me.
Softupdates for a time was under a restrictive license and available in FreeBSD.
It basically comes down to Darren wanting limited control over the IPFilter project. I haven't seen him say anything adverse to distribution, just that he'd like to be the one who controls the direction of the project.
Almost all the code was written by him anyway with a few patches from other people, relative.
"We are monkeys from the Red Lotus temple"!!!
Haha, oh man.
After the first book the plot descends into soap opera whining. On memory, the first follows a standard fantasy plot arc, but the characters by that point aren't annoying to the point of nausea as in the later books by dint of initial unacquaintance with the characters, which eventually becomes very clear with much repetition.
But then if I read the first again, today, I'd probably find it repulsive. After all, I did read it when I was 10 years old, right after reading the midkemia series, and the year before tackling the lord of the rings. I've pretty much given up on fantasy by now; not however implying that I've been able to find and enjoy new novels in other genres. I'm pretty much disgusted at this point. Nicholas Monsarrat's The Cruel Sea is the last novel I've enjoyed: 3 years ago!
Chicken and the egg. Kids who do not obtain an education do not think for themselves, except perhaps by having a vague, anti-authority, cynical attitude.
The people who "stand in line" don't go on to higher education: they work in dead end manual labor and service jobs and can't initially differentiate astrology from astronomy, parasychology from psychology, or neo-feminist dialectic comparative literature from empirical, verifiable sciences.
"sarcasm and quirkiness"
Yeah, we all know David Spade is never guilty of that.
Yeah, sure. Just ask George Lucas: Jar Jar cost 30 million dollars.
And Walmart would wish to sponsor this event.
Straight from the article:
" Do you wish that you could regain the helm at Origin once again? We fantasized about buying Origin back from EA. I feel we could have made it run much better. However as Joseph Campbell says in Hero With A Thousand Faces: "A schism in the body social, will not be resolved by any scheme of a return to the good old days (archaism), or by programs guaranteed to render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the most realistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating elements. Only birth can conquer death-the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new." [Yeah. What he said.] "
You're going to have to try harder than that.
britannica.com, history of western philosophy
The knowledge of Google that I've held has come primarily from "The Anatomy of a Large Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine", written by the founders of google in which they describe PageRank(tm)(patent). In it they describe their normalization and dampening and include a statement that "There are many other details which are beyond the scope of this paper".
Note also that your use of the word "size" is nearly congruent to my use of the word "authority".
In context of this slashdot article I stated that the function of the Journal was fundamentally different; i.e., that the journal operates in a pre-citation state by expert evaluation of content, which also implicitly includes categorization by specialization of specific journals.
In both posts it was made clear that new papers would not have the citations needed. Graphing citations as a function of time would show slow acceleration to a point of initial visibility.
Karma then is your so called answer. Unfortunately it suffers from "chicken or the egg" and would establish an elite group with unfair direct power over others.
The journal accepts or rejects on content by a standard set directly by correspondence (to them and to rivals) and indirectly by subscriber rate. They are therefore vulnerable to markets as a visible entity, whereas karma structure would not be.
I could list reasons all day, but it doesn't seem like you understand.
Using karma based on authority ranking would not work. Using karma based on random allocation would not work. Using karma based on unlimited or limited citation count would not work. Only in duplicating the journal would it work.
Ranking sites by link structure authority by linear algebra is fundamentally different than this. And besides, you have to know what to search for.
No, it would not give us our peer review. Open, noisy networks driven by karma would suffer from tyranny of the majority rather than duplicate the functionality implicit in human organized peer groups. The perceived metric solution of course is the authority rating. However, that too suffers from tyranny of the majority, where demonstrable specialist knowledge is instead required.
Further, specialization in a subset of one field often does not translate into another and therefore would require explicit categorization or a human controlled permission system, therefore becoming a poor duplicate of the peer review system.
These mechanisms would be vulnerable to initial feedback, tampering, duplication of human effort in ranking, interference from past ranking not viable in the present, and global maxima conspiring to prevent new entry where maxima is limited on one hand and unfair advantage in unlimited maxima in the single case, on the other.
The superior example extant seems to be <a href="http://citeseer.nj.nec.com">citeseer.nj.n ec.com</a>; and while it excels in its problem set, it is operating in a completely different domain than the peer reviewed journal.
More specifically and to expand on my previous assertion: The journal does not only offer peer review by those of real repute, but it offers organization, summarization, filtering, and real standards, accountable to people with experience and knowledge.