I dont care if actors have been porn start before their big time (many were) and i dont care if they appear in shiot adressing an audience which does not contain me.
Bought the app, happy I did not kickstart it. Good idea, accptably written story, but incredible hardware requirements (and even then its slow), and the gameplay just sucks. Unfinished, badly managed product at any rate.
We all might despise the idea and enthousiats, but all software developers here know: "Real artists ship" (attributed to Steve Jobs). Getting something out of the door which is usable and focuses on the core idea, but maybe limited, is crucial for all shareware and free to play developers, so yep, the quality requirements may be different. If a free to play game is too late to catch a certain wave of game mechanics, or so the gameplay bad that nobody want to continue playing it may be worse than having 10years old graphics.
IMHO There are three ways in which social media can help you in your job:
1) finding a job/boosting your career by contacts: unrelated to job performance.
2) Finding a solution to an already known problem (e.g. stackexchange) and retruning the favour there *iff you really have to say something* (otherwise it will annoy others and damage your reputation). Use it wisely to learn (and dont copy&paste too much).
3) Reflecting on your own mindset by (semi)-anonymously posting on the internet, and listening to the thoughts of others, without the pressure to loose your face if you are not right, or asking questions which you would not ask in public.
But having 1million friends and likes of facebook is not getting your problem solved unless your are an SEO sheep.
I saw people never as emotional as when you beat them nasty in the multi-player version of tetris. Some really physically attacked and tried to beat other people after that.
Third-grade students = 150 words per minute (wpm) Eight grade students = 250 Average college student = 450 Average âoehigh level execâ = 575 Average college professor = 675 Speed readers = 1,500 World speed reading champion = 4,700 Average adult: 300 wpm
From my education i am roughly at "Average College Professor". And 400 wpm was a conservative estimation of mine.
You could ask my colleagues about me regularly correcting semantic and syntactic mistakes in pages of code which i never saw before in minutes without running the program.
You could ask my boss about me analyzing typical presentations in about 5-10seconds per slide and yet remembering more of the specific content than people who sit for half an hour in front of it and never even penetrate the surface.
You could ask my coworkers about me reading abstracts of scientific papers in less than 5seconds and classifying them as interesting or not (did that when i did a group-internal rss feed on our topic).
Yes. Thats the distinction i make. Some written material is for "really skipping" some material is for "skimming for infromation" and some material is for reading. Not confusing one with the other is important and will save you frustration.
Well. In very structured matter (e.g. scientific articles) you can actually skip the introduction if you are from the field. In code you can skip organizational code which dont need to understand. And in newspaper articles you can often turn of the brain for 80% of the article if you already know the context,
I am a fast reader (>400words per minute), and when i skim a screenful of information or code I exceed this significantly.
There are some things which you need to understand:
* Reading may be fast, but comprehending may be tricky. If a page of code contains a tricky algorithm, it can take a week
* Classic literature (for which my speed drops below 200 word per minute) is not structured for being read quickly. If may be structured to model a thought process, or even a pattern of spoken language. Take your time to read it, and accept it.
* Literature often has dialogues, or reflections of dialogues. keepign two viepoints necessarily disrupts your reading speed. Books which have a lot of decription of though processes or viewpoints of characters contain more information. The more brilliant of these books manage to refer indirectly to the processes and let you infer a large part of what is going on (e.g. "Midnights Chrildren"). Obviously the limiting factor is not reading, but understanding.
Guys, you knew how long XP was going to be supported.
Its one of the longest supported Microsoft OS ever, and most applications for XP can be ported without pain to a newer OS. Windows 7/8 arent even that bad from the viewpoint of resource usage.
I myself will use XP in some VMs, which are anyway isolated from the rest of the world. Manufacturers who support a big fleet of devices will need to negotiate with MS or get their shit done correctly (i.e. plan upgrades and support).
Dear fellow scientists, admire us for the 1% of the cases when things like "oh i have a very simple theory about this" are brilliant and dont hate us for the 99% of the cases where this is just idiotic and arrogant.
Amazon: I really love your services, and if you allow VOD to be played on any android i will go take Amazon Prime immediatly. Dont try to puch your kindles on me.
Google: Please focus on providing good infrastructure and OS integration in Android for everybody. Stop pushing you own Hardware. Once one company has all aspects (hardware, Software, Content) i will not like them any more.
Samsung: Stop making smart TVs or other devices with own content channels. Your services suck and the bloatware you put on your android is the worst point about these devices.
Regarding the equivalence of the problems treatable by a QC to NP, it seems some NP problem are treatable by a QC effciently. If that applies to all (or which) NP problems is (to my knowledge) indeed an open question.
The very reason why physicists build quantum computers is *because* they suapect or propose this. In fact, the observation about the computational complexity was what lead to the idea of QC.
I have worked on QC (experimentally) and as an experimentalist i understand that the existence of Schroedinger cat-like states is a prerequisite to the generation of e-bits, which are what a succeding computation needs for the NP-speedup.
So hist section 3 is title wrong because it imples that arbitrary large quantum states can be generated (sine he uses the word "explained" and not "equivalent"). However these have not been observed for *arbitrary large system*. i observed such states experimetnally, and as a matter of fact we were busy oberving the decay into a classical state, which is standard technique in all experimental groups working on this field.
So iff NP=!P then QC makes sense and a prerequisite for QC is the generation of systems with many e-bits (entanglement measure). Even a large system undergoing a quantum dynamics (e.g. the cooled MEMS systems) is not sufficient for claiming (or thinking) that there exists much entanglement in the computational sense.
I am sick and tired of mentally short-circuited papers like this one which restate the obvious and ignore the recent developments. i am sick theorist who dream of being great philosphersand at the same time utterly ignorant of many people doing hard work in the last 20 years.The citation pattern in the paper screams "shit". I see no reference to previousl literature about entanglement measures. He talkes about the "measurement" problem like it did not receive any attention in the last 80 years (and as a matter of fact it did, theoretically and experimentally). The abstratc doe not state a clear goal, the paper contains a quantum mechanics for beginners lesson and the paper does not have a "summary" but "final remarks".
looking at the prvious work of the same author an incredibly weird comment (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1747v4.pdf) can be fund in which he has his personal definition of what is falsifiable. His central idea does not hold, of course, if i can do one or more things of the following:
* Apply trace operations before comparing the observation, and at the same time reduce the complexity of the theoreticla calculation
* Do postselection and compare relative probabilities of experimental outcomes , where the ration verifies or falisifies the theory.
Both are valid standard operations in verifying (i.e. not falsifying) quantum theory.
He seems to be a, medical data evaluation guy, has no significant publicaitons as first author (and to few impact points for his role), and, as much as i appreciate people of other disciplines getting interested in physics, i would expect that we distinct a nice college-level summary from serious research.
The service sucked from the beginning and if i want to have my mainly OS as a platform to get cloud services shuffled up my ass then i buy apple, android, or chrome OS.
git: stores and compares decentralized repositories extremly well. It's good if you have loose collaborations without a central insitution providing the repo service. Advantages are that people can quickly store their own versions during development
subversion: manages a single repository in cases where preventing multiple (uncontrolled) branches is mandated to the organization responsible (Yes, it is an advantage not to have too many different possible original sources of builds).
Depends if they have "Availability" on their list of promises.
Availability is the thing which is most expensive to achieve. "Free service added to a consumer product where probably already every cent of cost has been shaved off before and which is probably not used to its full extend by a major fraction of users" usually does not go well with availability.
a) while the System for publishing needs to be overhauled seriously (and thats happening all the time) it is by no way obsolete
b) while publication fees exist these are usually minor, and are quite low if you dont demand printing features (e.g. colored prints)
c) I think JSTOR fulfills a important role. Without such a organization, univerities would be forced to eat the shit of the publishers in a much bigger extend
d) Not acting on the illegal copying of a big database would undermine the attempts to open up the situation. Something which Aaron did is exactly what the publishers alsways fear.
e) The MIT acted correctly. If a business partner of mine is attacked in such a way on my network, i have the responsibility to clear the situation and secure evidence but no responsibility to press charges on my own.
f) I dont share the interpretation that he did not know what he was doing
g) Reasons for suicides are complex. The assertion that somebody is responsible for a suicide, since he was not 100% positive and supportive about an individual is not the right message, especially *not* in the light of preventing future suicides
There are not many series which should run longer than 3-4 seasons, no matter how big the commercial success is. After this they usually focus on single ideas too much and serve the viewers who watched everything before. The only notable exception which would come to my mind is Dr. Who, and even there i would argue that the long break with a big restart (insteadt of a small one which is implicit in Dr. Who all the time) worked out very well.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont care if actors have been porn start before their big time (many were) and i dont care if they appear in shiot adressing an audience which does not contain me.
Bought the app, happy I did not kickstart it. Good idea, accptably written story, but incredible hardware requirements (and even then its slow), and the gameplay just sucks. Unfinished, badly managed product at any rate.
We all might despise the idea and enthousiats, but all software developers here know: "Real artists ship" (attributed to Steve Jobs). Getting something out of the door which is usable and focuses on the core idea, but maybe limited, is crucial for all shareware and free to play developers, so yep, the quality requirements may be different. If a free to play game is too late to catch a certain wave of game mechanics, or so the gameplay bad that nobody want to continue playing it may be worse than having 10years old graphics.
IMHO There are three ways in which social media can help you in your job:
1) finding a job/boosting your career by contacts: unrelated to job performance.
2) Finding a solution to an already known problem (e.g. stackexchange) and retruning the favour there *iff you really have to say something* (otherwise it will annoy others and damage your reputation). Use it wisely to learn (and dont copy&paste too much).
3) Reflecting on your own mindset by (semi)-anonymously posting on the internet, and listening to the thoughts of others, without the pressure to loose your face if you are not right, or asking questions which you would not ask in public.
But having 1million friends and likes of facebook is not getting your problem solved unless your are an SEO sheep.
To my experience:
not all pages in a single linear algebra book are created equal.
I saw people never as emotional as when you beat them nasty in the multi-player version of tetris. Some really physically attacked and tried to beat other people after that.
Wow. I presume another English native speaker picking on spelling mistakes in a quickly typed comment in a foreign language?
400 Words per minute is by no way "super-high".
From http://www.forbes.com/sites/br...
Third-grade students = 150 words per minute (wpm)
Eight grade students = 250
Average college student = 450
Average âoehigh level execâ = 575
Average college professor = 675
Speed readers = 1,500
World speed reading champion = 4,700
Average adult: 300 wpm
From my education i am roughly at "Average College Professor". And 400 wpm was a conservative estimation of mine.
You could ask my colleagues about me regularly correcting semantic and syntactic mistakes in pages of code which i never saw before in minutes without running the program.
You could ask my boss about me analyzing typical presentations in about 5-10seconds per slide and yet remembering more of the specific content than people who sit for half an hour in front of it and never even penetrate the surface.
You could ask my coworkers about me reading abstracts of scientific papers in less than 5seconds and classifying them as interesting or not (did that when i did a group-internal rss feed on our topic).
Yes. Thats the distinction i make. Some written material is for "really skipping" some material is for "skimming for infromation" and some material is for reading. Not confusing one with the other is important and will save you frustration.
Well. In very structured matter (e.g. scientific articles) you can actually skip the introduction if you are from the field. In code you can skip organizational code which dont need to understand. And in newspaper articles you can often turn of the brain for 80% of the article if you already know the context,
get over it.
I am a fast reader (>400words per minute), and when i skim a screenful of information or code I exceed this significantly.
There are some things which you need to understand:
* Reading may be fast, but comprehending may be tricky. If a page of code contains a tricky algorithm, it can take a week
* Classic literature (for which my speed drops below 200 word per minute) is not structured for being read quickly. If may be structured to model a thought process, or even a pattern of spoken language. Take your time to read it, and accept it.
* Literature often has dialogues, or reflections of dialogues. keepign two viepoints necessarily disrupts your reading speed. Books which have a lot of decription of though processes or viewpoints of characters contain more information. The more brilliant of these books manage to refer indirectly to the processes and let you infer a large part of what is going on (e.g. "Midnights Chrildren"). Obviously the limiting factor is not reading, but understanding.
Guys, you knew how long XP was going to be supported.
Its one of the longest supported Microsoft OS ever, and most applications for XP can be ported without pain to a newer OS. Windows 7/8 arent even that bad from the viewpoint of resource usage.
I myself will use XP in some VMs, which are anyway isolated from the rest of the world. Manufacturers who support a big fleet of devices will need to negotiate with MS or get their shit done correctly (i.e. plan upgrades and support).
Just because i observe something simple, it does not need to the the complete explanation.
Dear fellow scientists, admire us for the 1% of the cases when things like "oh i have a very simple theory about this" are brilliant and dont hate us for the 99% of the cases where this is just idiotic and arrogant.
Most of them can solate the XP machines in a private network, very much like i isolated the Windows98 machines (Thanks, Tektronix) a few years back.
Because they need batteries?
Amazon: I really love your services, and if you allow VOD to be played on any android i will go take Amazon Prime immediatly. Dont try to puch your kindles on me.
Google: Please focus on providing good infrastructure and OS integration in Android for everybody. Stop pushing you own Hardware. Once one company has all aspects (hardware, Software, Content) i will not like them any more.
Samsung: Stop making smart TVs or other devices with own content channels. Your services suck and the bloatware you put on your android is the worst point about these devices.
Partially.
I should have formulated the other way:
if NP==P then a QC wont make sense.
Regarding the equivalence of the problems treatable by a QC to NP, it seems some NP problem are treatable by a QC effciently. If that applies to all (or which) NP problems is (to my knowledge) indeed an open question.
The very reason why physicists build quantum computers is *because* they suapect or propose this. In fact, the observation about the computational complexity was what lead to the idea of QC.
I have worked on QC (experimentally) and as an experimentalist i understand that the existence of Schroedinger cat-like states is a prerequisite to the generation of e-bits, which are what a succeding computation needs for the NP-speedup.
So hist section 3 is title wrong because it imples that arbitrary large quantum states can be generated (sine he uses the word "explained" and not "equivalent"). However these have not been observed for *arbitrary large system*. i observed such states experimetnally, and as a matter of fact we were busy oberving the decay into a classical state, which is standard technique in all experimental groups working on this field.
So iff NP=!P then QC makes sense and
a prerequisite for QC is the generation of systems with many e-bits (entanglement measure). Even a large system undergoing a quantum dynamics (e.g. the cooled MEMS systems) is not sufficient for claiming (or thinking) that there exists much entanglement in the computational sense.
I am sick and tired of mentally short-circuited papers like this one which restate the obvious and ignore the recent developments. i am sick theorist who dream of being great philosphersand at the same time utterly ignorant of many people doing hard work in the last 20 years.The citation pattern in the paper screams "shit". I see no reference to previousl literature about entanglement measures. He talkes about the "measurement" problem like it did not receive any attention in the last 80 years (and as a matter of fact it did, theoretically and experimentally). The abstratc doe not state a clear goal, the paper contains a quantum mechanics for beginners lesson and the paper does not have a "summary" but "final remarks".
looking at the prvious work of the same author an incredibly weird comment (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1747v4.pdf) can be fund in which he has his personal definition of what is falsifiable. His central idea does not hold, of course, if i can do one or more things of the following:
* Apply trace operations before comparing the observation, and at the same time reduce the complexity of the theoreticla calculation
* Do postselection and compare relative probabilities of experimental outcomes , where the ration verifies or falisifies the theory.
Both are valid standard operations in verifying (i.e. not falsifying) quantum theory.
He seems to be a, medical data evaluation guy, has no significant publicaitons as first author (and to few impact points for his role), and, as much as i appreciate people of other disciplines getting interested in physics, i would expect that we distinct a nice college-level summary from serious research.
The service sucked from the beginning and if i want to have my mainly OS as a platform to get cloud services shuffled up my ass then i buy apple, android, or chrome OS.
git: stores and compares decentralized repositories extremly well. It's good if you have loose collaborations without a central insitution providing the repo service. Advantages are that people can quickly store their own versions during development
subversion: manages a single repository in cases where preventing multiple (uncontrolled) branches is mandated to the organization responsible (Yes, it is an advantage not to have too many different possible original sources of builds).
I am a happy user of both. Subversion and Git have different fields of application, and that is good.
Depends if they have "Availability" on their list of promises.
Availability is the thing which is most expensive to achieve. "Free service added to a consumer product where probably already every cent of cost has been shaved off before and which is probably not used to its full extend by a major fraction of users" usually does not go well with availability.
Former researcher here:
a) while the System for publishing needs to be overhauled seriously (and thats happening all the time) it is by no way obsolete
b) while publication fees exist these are usually minor, and are quite low if you dont demand printing features (e.g. colored prints)
c) I think JSTOR fulfills a important role. Without such a organization, univerities would be forced to eat the shit of the publishers in a much bigger extend
d) Not acting on the illegal copying of a big database would undermine the attempts to open up the situation. Something which Aaron did is exactly what the publishers alsways fear.
e) The MIT acted correctly. If a business partner of mine is attacked in such a way on my network, i have the responsibility to clear the situation and secure evidence but no responsibility to press charges on my own.
f) I dont share the interpretation that he did not know what he was doing
g) Reasons for suicides are complex. The assertion that somebody is responsible for a suicide, since he was not 100% positive and supportive about an individual is not the right message, especially *not* in the light of preventing future suicides
Pretty much everything after the end of season 3?
There are not many series which should run longer than 3-4 seasons, no matter how big the commercial success is. After this they usually focus on single ideas too much and serve the viewers who watched everything before. The only notable exception which would come to my mind is Dr. Who, and even there i would argue that the long break with a big restart (insteadt of a small one which is implicit in Dr. Who all the time) worked out very well.
Definitely the best episode i remember. Actually one of the only ones I remember very positively. Great acting, great story, no rush for effects.