even though the pixels don't need to change but once every 33ms, that doesn't change the fact that a slow panel takes 20ms for the pixel to change. Your eyes can tell the difference when a pixel goes from white to black in 3ms vs 20ms, you perceive it as ghosting, tracers, motion blur, etc.
no I didn't. The problem you described was to pour water with mathematically perfect precision. When I pour it's not perfect. If my brain really did all that math you described I would never spill a drop and I could confidently fill glass after glass with the same exact amount of water from the same pitcher.
Nope, thats not what my brain does. The "black box of trial and error" solves the problem with enough precision to be practical and that's where it stops. For all intents and purposes (pouring water from a pitcher) you could consider it solved. But mathematically my brain's solution is a cludgy estimation based on all sorts of hacked together data points like looking at the stream of water at the spout, feeling the weight of the pitcher and the weight of the glass, etc.
I don't believe there is anything magical about the brain, and I believe it can be reproduced in a man-made form. But I think it is far far more complex than we yet realize.
Oh we realize how complex it is. All the computers on the planet combined would still not have enough transistors to emulate a single brain's quadrillion synapses!
However, creating a virtual analog self organizing neural network with as much or more capacity as a human brain is technically feasible with today's technology. It's the cognitive programming of the brain which must be reverse engineered, and let me tell ya, God wrote some pretty ugly code! I just submitted a 3000 line else-if ladder to the daily WTF.. you'd think GOD of all people would know how to use a case statement.
Re:Only a matter of time
on
The Los Alamos Bug
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Re:Gmail is to email as...
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 2, Funny
just 12,761 unread messages? pfsht. I have rules that send all new messages to one of 32 different printers in my building. When I'm walking around I just snatch an email off a printer, skim it, crumple it up and throw it away! If there's something I need I have my assistant do it. Simple as that.
The puzzle is similar to the 'petals around the rose' game in that the more you complicate it the more difficult it seems. Once the guru says the word "blue" you know that it's all the blue eyed people who will be leaving the island and the problem becomes on which night do they leave. Since it is given that there are 100 blue eyed people, then it becomes obvious that they will be leaving on the 100th night.
It's important that you comprehend the mathematical problem as presented in english. Getting hung up on semantics and ambiguities is what makes this problem difficult.
The guru would not be the one to leave. It is impossible for the guru to know the color of her own eyes unless somebody communicated it to her. So when is it spoken, the word "green" for it to be known to the guru that she has green eyes?
The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.
Clearly my dealer has been lying to me. He swore there was nothing stronger than his stuff. Where do I get HU-210?..or better yet, how do I make it?
most rdbms's align themselves with a relational normalization theory that deem auto-increment columns or sequences a hack anyways. I know exactly what your talking about though.. being able to have multi-dimensional autonumber columns would've saved me a lot of trouble.
Supposedly anytime you find yourself using these autonumber columns there would be a "proper" solution w/o them if you step back and revise your schema.
What confuses me is that in all the examples for showing off 3rd, 4th, 5th normal form they love using autonumber examples for splitting tables into relationships and showing how less redundant it is afterwards. I wish relationships that as simple as replacing redundant values with id's would just be handled transparently by the server.
I just want it to store what I give it, and recall what I ask of it quickly...and using a relational database engine for this task is the right tool for the job?
And what makes a princeton research librarian more credible than a karl rove? Either can have an agenda.. Karl Rove's could be political, a princeton-research-librarian's could be personal.
How do you straighten agenda-bent facts? Peer review falls short when your peers share the same agenda.
People are just going to have to learn that credibility can never be taken for granted. You need to know the author's biases, possible conflicts of interest and ulterior motives. Usually you can infer what these are by reading more from the same author. Being able to quickly access other contributions made by the contributor of interest is one thing wikipedia could make very practical.
what if your private key is stored in a little bluetooth keychain that never actually emits the raw key but instead answers requests to decrypt strings. then the only thing a public computer could capture is the decrypted string, but that should only be good for as long as the session.. or, since its happening behind the scenes anyways maybe it actually hits your bluetooth decrypter every few seconds with a new string so it knows when to end the session.
in writing you can't hear the obvious lunacy which would normally decrease their credibility, not to mention other factors that tend to reduce the speaker's influence on you (their dress, demeanor, etc)
It's like a stranger in a suit and tie walks up and says to you firmly, "you will die at 6 o'clock". Your experience up until 6 will be slightly less uncomfortable than if some hagard crazy said that to you.
I'm not saying you should be excited and happy to be getting waken up at 3am to fix something. You make it sound like there is a conflict of interest. Of course its frustrating and inconvenient to have to do this. However, the passionate person puts the features and functionality of modern software before his selfish desire to never be bothered.
You sound like the sort of grump who would deploy 10 year old feature-lacking constrictive software, because you are unwilling to be bothered to learn the idiosyncrasies of the latest stuff.
I bet your pissy 3am grump sessions are from systems running software so old they haven't been QA'd against the hardware you're running them on. Or do you go so far as to install the 10 year old software on 10 year old hardware? In that case do your headaches come from dead cpu fans or bad power supplies?
There will always be 3am calls. Wouldn't you rather be learning and helping make the modern software more stable? I already know your answer is that you would rather not be bothered at 3am in the first place.. because you've lost your passion.
people who are into cars and driving need to learn about the track. take your car to the track. if your enjoying yourself on the freeway it's probably at the sake of other people's safety.
Slashdot Mirror
but when quantum computers are outlawed only outlaws will have quantum computers!
I have 3 vx924's I run them all at 91.7KHz Horizontal, 86.1Hz Vertical (pixel clock 154.79MHz)
The standard windows driver would only allow 75 or 80, but I used powerstrip to squeeze it up to 86
even though the pixels don't need to change but once every 33ms, that doesn't change the fact that a slow panel takes 20ms for the pixel to change. Your eyes can tell the difference when a pixel goes from white to black in 3ms vs 20ms, you perceive it as ghosting, tracers, motion blur, etc.
YOU ALREADY SOLVED THIS PROBLEM!
no I didn't. The problem you described was to pour water with mathematically perfect precision. When I pour it's not perfect. If my brain really did all that math you described I would never spill a drop and I could confidently fill glass after glass with the same exact amount of water from the same pitcher.
Nope, thats not what my brain does. The "black box of trial and error" solves the problem with enough precision to be practical and that's where it stops. For all intents and purposes (pouring water from a pitcher) you could consider it solved. But mathematically my brain's solution is a cludgy estimation based on all sorts of hacked together data points like looking at the stream of water at the spout, feeling the weight of the pitcher and the weight of the glass, etc.
I don't believe there is anything magical about the brain, and I believe it can be reproduced in a man-made form. But I think it is far far more complex than we yet realize.
Oh we realize how complex it is. All the computers on the planet combined would still not have enough transistors to emulate a single brain's quadrillion synapses!
However, creating a virtual analog self organizing neural network with as much or more capacity as a human brain is technically feasible with today's technology. It's the cognitive programming of the brain which must be reverse engineered, and let me tell ya, God wrote some pretty ugly code! I just submitted a 3000 line else-if ladder to the daily WTF.. you'd think GOD of all people would know how to use a case statement.
Singularity Institute for AI
Tux can milk anything with nipples really
just 12,761 unread messages? pfsht.
I have rules that send all new messages to one of 32 different printers in my building. When I'm walking around I just snatch an email off a printer, skim it, crumple it up and throw it away! If there's something I need I have my assistant do it. Simple as that.
The puzzle is similar to the 'petals around the rose' game in that the more you complicate it the more difficult it seems. Once the guru says the word "blue" you know that it's all the blue eyed people who will be leaving the island and the problem becomes on which night do they leave. Since it is given that there are 100 blue eyed people, then it becomes obvious that they will be leaving on the 100th night.
It's important that you comprehend the mathematical problem as presented in english. Getting hung up on semantics and ambiguities is what makes this problem difficult.
The guru would not be the one to leave. It is impossible for the guru to know the color of her own eyes unless somebody communicated it to her. So when is it spoken, the word "green" for it to be known to the guru that she has green eyes?
how does the "the name is important" help you to derive this translation to apply before summing the values?
1=0
2=0
3=2
4=0
5=4
6=0
this puzzle has nothing to do with roses or petals!
The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.
..or better yet, how do I make it?
Clearly my dealer has been lying to me. He swore there was nothing stronger than his stuff. Where do I get HU-210?
Have you ever taken an MBTI test?
I think chemistry.com could be wildly successful just by matching people with their MBTI supplimentals.
foreign key constraint?
most rdbms's align themselves with a relational normalization theory that deem auto-increment columns or sequences a hack anyways. I know exactly what your talking about though.. being able to have multi-dimensional autonumber columns would've saved me a lot of trouble.
Supposedly anytime you find yourself using these autonumber columns there would be a "proper" solution w/o them if you step back and revise your schema.
What confuses me is that in all the examples for showing off 3rd, 4th, 5th normal form they love using autonumber examples for splitting tables into relationships and showing how less redundant it is afterwards. I wish relationships that as simple as replacing redundant values with id's would just be handled transparently by the server.
I just want it to store what I give it, and recall what I ask of it quickly. ..and using a relational database engine for this task is the right tool for the job?
And what makes a princeton research librarian more credible than a karl rove? Either can have an agenda.. Karl Rove's could be political, a princeton-research-librarian's could be personal.
How do you straighten agenda-bent facts? Peer review falls short when your peers share the same agenda.
People are just going to have to learn that credibility can never be taken for granted. You need to know the author's biases, possible conflicts of interest and ulterior motives. Usually you can infer what these are by reading more from the same author. Being able to quickly access other contributions made by the contributor of interest is one thing wikipedia could make very practical.
pfsht..
http://www.mp3search.ru/
http://allofmp3.com/
dude, ghandi was teaching civil disobedience waay before rosa parks had her ego trip. some people take "black history" way to literally.
what if your private key is stored in a little bluetooth keychain that never actually emits the raw key but instead answers requests to decrypt strings. then the only thing a public computer could capture is the decrypted string, but that should only be good for as long as the session.. or, since its happening behind the scenes anyways maybe it actually hits your bluetooth decrypter every few seconds with a new string so it knows when to end the session.
What about when you need to login at a public terminal or from a friends house? You need to have your private key memorized or on a usb keychain?
jesus, the code the parent posted offends me in so many ways. just what the fuck is wrong with named, typed, out parameters anyways?
in writing you can't hear the obvious lunacy which would normally decrease their credibility, not to mention other factors that tend to reduce the speaker's influence on you (their dress, demeanor, etc)
It's like a stranger in a suit and tie walks up and says to you firmly, "you will die at 6 o'clock". Your experience up until 6 will be slightly less uncomfortable than if some hagard crazy said that to you.
I'm not saying you should be excited and happy to be getting waken up at 3am to fix something. You make it sound like there is a conflict of interest. Of course its frustrating and inconvenient to have to do this. However, the passionate person puts the features and functionality of modern software before his selfish desire to never be bothered.
You sound like the sort of grump who would deploy 10 year old feature-lacking constrictive software, because you are unwilling to be bothered to learn the idiosyncrasies of the latest stuff.
I bet your pissy 3am grump sessions are from systems running software so old they haven't been QA'd against the hardware you're running them on. Or do you go so far as to install the 10 year old software on 10 year old hardware? In that case do your headaches come from dead cpu fans or bad power supplies?
There will always be 3am calls. Wouldn't you rather be learning and helping make the modern software more stable? I already know your answer is that you would rather not be bothered at 3am in the first place.. because you've lost your passion.
people who are into cars and driving need to learn about the track. take your car to the track. if your enjoying yourself on the freeway it's probably at the sake of other people's safety.