I agree that Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists, so I will tell you what I would do differently:
1. Add more democracy, get rid of the crazy "majority doesn't decide, consensus does" which can be subjective, and decide objectively with voting. 2. Equate power between admins and normal users - give users ability to recall admin, separate admin privileges (like bans and deletions). 3. Weigh votes slightly by stable (not reverted) added content to the main pages or images. 4. Create several notability levels for articles. This would also organize content better, because it would make easier to find more notable things. 5. Give more consideration to the readers - make feedback polls, consider number of accesses to page in deletion, and so on. 6. Stop worrying when things are not perfect. Do not remove unsourced content unilaterally, but encourage experts to confirm/deny it and add sources. This creates opportunity for crowdsourcing. Also encourage experts to add just sources (and not text) to stub articles.
I don't use any tools. I just have all the content on two sets of external disks (copies of each other; I use external disks because I don't have large enough computer and I don't like the idea everything to be under current at all times). It's a pain to manage. I think Linux (or your favorite OS) desperately needs a 2-tier backup system with deduplication (but still making sure you have enough copies for recovery) and a good user interface.
Ideally, I would say, in file manager, unarchive me this file, and he would look for the file, let me mount the proper disks/CDs required to get and then copy it to some cache area on main harddisk. Here I could play with the files (change, sort, rename, tag, whatever), and then he would automatically backup them again when I wouldn't play with them any longer anymore.
Actually, I would argue you just added a bunch of sophisticated mathematics, but didn't make the concepts any less vague. Moreover, I would even argue that vagueness of Occam's razor is a good thing, and your definition is wrong.
Consider having some experimental data and trying to create the model. If you overfit the model (for example, use regression of so high order, that the residuals are all 0), then you created an explanation with slightly better quality, but arguably, this model is worse, because it's a lot more complicated. But still, you couldn't apply Occam's razor in your definition to simplify it, because of the hard first condition you have.
In other words, the model you need depends on application; you don't need to use relativity to calculate moving cars.
If the US made it harder for USSR to cut spending, they made the USSR threat last longer, not shorter, didn't they? If the US would let the USSR to cut spending, they would be forced to unarmament talks sooner.
I am not sure if having everything in a single model is a good approach. Certainly seems too computationally expensive.
I would much prefer if people start looking into socio-economic modeling. We now have pretty good climatic models, and this started in the 50s, when there computers had almost no power. Now we have such power, and we could feasibly simulate social (i and economic behavior of whole country on a home PC.
We could start like this: Each person in simulation would have possible actions (these would be predefined), and decide on which action to use based on habit, previous experience and copying from friends of its social network. Actions could range from economic (produce something of value) through social (meet someone) to political (enter contract with someone).
I doubt U.S. government would want something from us. First, we have already been to U.S. 2 years ago (on a similar business trip). Second, most of the U.S. secrets (I mean industrial) have been already outsourced to other countries, including mine (consider our company). So, all in all, I think two foreigners visiting a museum are pretty harmless to U.S. national security.
BTW. The U.S. is actually a nice place. There is more corruption in our country anyway. I think most Americans are overreacting to government powers, even though I agree that the situation is getting worse there (especially the class divide).
I would like to get there with a colleague during our upcoming business trip (if it will be approved - we are Czechs working for American company with office near Washington). However, the opening hours in the museum are quite unfriendly - basically only during the week (we will be at work), plus 1st and 3rd Saturday in month for 4 hours. We hope we will get on Saturday there, will have to plan accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds is known to be a git sometimes
It's not that bad. He even wrote a program to remind that to himself. Or maybe he wrote it to remind others?
I agree that Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists, so I will tell you what I would do differently:
1. Add more democracy, get rid of the crazy "majority doesn't decide, consensus does" which can be subjective, and decide objectively with voting.
2. Equate power between admins and normal users - give users ability to recall admin, separate admin privileges (like bans and deletions).
3. Weigh votes slightly by stable (not reverted) added content to the main pages or images.
4. Create several notability levels for articles. This would also organize content better, because it would make easier to find more notable things.
5. Give more consideration to the readers - make feedback polls, consider number of accesses to page in deletion, and so on.
6. Stop worrying when things are not perfect. Do not remove unsourced content unilaterally, but encourage experts to confirm/deny it and add sources. This creates opportunity for crowdsourcing. Also encourage experts to add just sources (and not text) to stub articles.
And BP gets oil peak.
I guess what remains is to watch few episodes of http://atheist-experience.com/ and you will find you don't actually need the god at all.
I don't use any tools. I just have all the content on two sets of external disks (copies of each other; I use external disks because I don't have large enough computer and I don't like the idea everything to be under current at all times). It's a pain to manage. I think Linux (or your favorite OS) desperately needs a 2-tier backup system with deduplication (but still making sure you have enough copies for recovery) and a good user interface.
Ideally, I would say, in file manager, unarchive me this file, and he would look for the file, let me mount the proper disks/CDs required to get and then copy it to some cache area on main harddisk. Here I could play with the files (change, sort, rename, tag, whatever), and then he would automatically backup them again when I wouldn't play with them any longer anymore.
Actually, I would argue you just added a bunch of sophisticated mathematics, but didn't make the concepts any less vague. Moreover, I would even argue that vagueness of Occam's razor is a good thing, and your definition is wrong.
Consider having some experimental data and trying to create the model. If you overfit the model (for example, use regression of so high order, that the residuals are all 0), then you created an explanation with slightly better quality, but arguably, this model is worse, because it's a lot more complicated. But still, you couldn't apply Occam's razor in your definition to simplify it, because of the hard first condition you have.
In other words, the model you need depends on application; you don't need to use relativity to calculate moving cars.
What about mathematical experiments? You can do them in your head, and they are still only experiments..
It wasn't on the keyboard.
If the US made it harder for USSR to cut spending, they made the USSR threat last longer, not shorter, didn't they? If the US would let the USSR to cut spending, they would be forced to unarmament talks sooner.
I believe he is suggesting Common Lisp.
Can it solve differential equations too? And recognize shoe vendors?
Wrong. It's graph coloring. Admittedly, 8 queens is also instance of graph coloring, but different one.
An annual interview with Bjarne Stroustrup, about the upcoming C++0x standard:
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/10/14/1947247/Bjarne-Stroustrup-Reflects-On-25-Years-of-C
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/07/1518205/Bjarne-Stroustrup-On-Concepts-C0x
So C++ originally stood for "C plus plus? My programming language!" ?
I am not sure if having everything in a single model is a good approach. Certainly seems too computationally expensive.
I would much prefer if people start looking into socio-economic modeling. We now have pretty good climatic models, and this started in the 50s, when there computers had almost no power. Now we have such power, and we could feasibly simulate social (i and economic behavior of whole country on a home PC.
We could start like this: Each person in simulation would have possible actions (these would be predefined), and decide on which action to use based on habit, previous experience and copying from friends of its social network. Actions could range from economic (produce something of value) through social (meet someone) to political (enter contract with someone).
Hey, interesting! You program for z/OS in Emacs? What plugins do you use to edit datasets remotely?
(I too program for z/OS professionally, in assembler and C, and too like Emacs, because of Lisp, but I hadn't time yet to put the two together.)
Maybe it wasn't invented, it was discovered. (Forth is a similar case.)
The syntax is there for a reason. The reason is macros. And macros are the main reason why Lisp is great.
Really? Who would have guessed..
So maybe it was established by the media, so they could leak but still have plausible deniability?
Also increased incidence of flamewars...
I think you are joking.
I doubt U.S. government would want something from us. First, we have already been to U.S. 2 years ago (on a similar business trip). Second, most of the U.S. secrets (I mean industrial) have been already outsourced to other countries, including mine (consider our company). So, all in all, I think two foreigners visiting a museum are pretty harmless to U.S. national security.
BTW. The U.S. is actually a nice place. There is more corruption in our country anyway. I think most Americans are overreacting to government powers, even though I agree that the situation is getting worse there (especially the class divide).
I would like to get there with a colleague during our upcoming business trip (if it will be approved - we are Czechs working for American company with office near Washington). However, the opening hours in the museum are quite unfriendly - basically only during the week (we will be at work), plus 1st and 3rd Saturday in month for 4 hours. We hope we will get on Saturday there, will have to plan accordingly.
Just use Wikipedia for that.
Putting soldiers and their trusted informants in danger is evil.
Really? Maybe you should think who sent those soldiers to Afghanistan in the first place.