this may compete for the worst articles ever featured on./
a) most interestingly, the seriously competing offer was from WADS
b) Since USA are not liked very much in the region (and dont like the region very much) and everybody knows that export issues in the USA for weapons are always very political, it is a good choice not to depend on the spare parts.
c) It is a good example on the misconception of the population in USA on that weapons designed for the cold war of the war with USSR are anyhow more convincing in modern (asymmetric) conflicts than weapons not on the cutting edge of this race. Yes. The American military planes are good. But if you look at Afghanistan, even the western forces would need *more* aircrafts and not *higher advanced* aircrafts. And the same holds true for india
Disclaimer: i have worked for a group competing with dwave.
What dWave has, and they claim not much more, is a system which is stable enough to use thermal noise (their unproven claim: with a small addition by quantum tunnelling) to find the ground state of a Hamiltonian to construct. This solves some tasks, but by far not all.
What the rest of the QC community wants is a computer which can generate and manipulate entangled state superpositions, enabling to execute arbitrary operations on exponentially scaling (in the number of qubits) sets.
My prediction: The thing (dwave) has is a nice patent stack. Once other groups solve the important problems dwave will sue the fuck out of them or agree on a technology exchange.
In my (former researcher who left to industry) opinion/experience its not the editors who put the pressure, but the possibility that you ignored a work of somebody who is important enough to referee for Nature or Science. There are some components of these phenomena:
a) Maybe the work really is important, and you did not know it because it's too long ago. There is usually nothing wrong with a referee saying "hey that is similar to what [xyz]" did, even if they are on the list of authors on the reference in question.
b) some referees dont react positively to not getting cited and will shoot down any paper not referring to *their* theory for other reasons (i believe that happened to me once)
c) In the abstract (which is the part really read by the editors before the refereeing process) you compare your paper to the previous publications. Authors are under the impression that comparing your work to previous important papers makes a better impression. How far this is true i cant judge. I found the editor stage *before* the refereeing in Nature and Science the most intransparent thing I have experienced as an author. Unlike the refereeing process there is no way to appeal, there is not information on what the editors disliked so much to refuse directly. (There is the saying that once you had Nature/Science papers it gets more likely to pass this stage, and i have seen at least one example of a paper being passed to Nature which for sure would have been rejected by the editors had it come from a less important group in the field)
What is "sidestepping the gpl"? Sony says for some products GPLing is for some reason problematic (which may be even not due to their own decisions), so lets write a free version.
IMHO GPL should be enforced wherever it was intended to apply. If i invest time in something, i want that this happens under my conditions.
which is not so bright. Especially taken into account that this money may be the pension savings for a lot of people. The self-dependence is the thing which prevents them from developing. They have their own market, just for themself, they have their own financial system and their own science system.
No pressing need for serious reforms, is there? And there is not much time left.
No, but after weird conspiracy theories about women, weird interviews, improperly handling cryptographic keys just to show off, after treating the other WL members in a king-servant relation (causing real harm), using WL publicity for his private legal costs and making contracts with the media who are more worthy of sony that of a organisation interested in the free exchange of information, what do you expect from JA?
i am scared that every idiot who obviously has not read any fundamental philosophy of science works and obviously has not done research declares his own opinion, untouched by having seen a lab from the inside, on how science works only to complain afterwards about his picture of science.
One of the repetitive aspects of this discussion is "causality", which seems, in the mind of the general population, a scientific principle. Let me remark that in the modern science we usually replace causality by the ability to create an underlying - possibly complex - model, the predictions of which depend on a parameter. That is the test which scientists would use such a model to determine causality, since it enables hopefully tests independent of the specific result.
Ahem. lets not forget that this was not an official statement by samsung, but an unknown inside source, which may be prone to one of the following effects:
a) overestimation of the own knowledge
b) intentional misinformation inside the company
c) making himself/herself more important to the journalist than he is
d) The samsung legal department changing their opinion on what "google requires" means for them (its not an easy question if you take the liability for the installed SW all around the world)
(disclaimer: I am currently working on renewable Energies, so there may be a bias)
They ask for more funding for analysing weather data. They explicitly say: "we want to understand it better, because we want to control it in a *reasonable* way and prepare for it *as it is needed*". What they say (and that is a point which should have been argued better, taken into account that they ask for more observations....) is: we have roughly 50 years more to change it.
What they don't discuss is that the investment cycles in Energy Technologies are *incredibly long*. There is no energy technology which was ramped up from its invention to its massive use in less than 50 years (lets exclude civil nuclear reactors, which were a side product of building boms).
So my opinion (as a physicist who is convinced that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a parameter of the system we should not meddle with too much and thinks that these scientist are affected by a bias to get more satellites) is: we wont change it rapidly on the short term anyway. Also there will be no big flood wave coming the next year. Instead of hyping electric/hybrid cars to be the salvation we should take the time (the next 20-30 years) and seriously develop the new (or old) technologies and combine them in the ideal way.
Thats exactly right. So if you tell somebody to look at a commercial featuring siri on the iphone4 he would be mistaken to believe that this processing happens on his iphone.
And to be clear: i dont think that voice recognition on mobile devices is impossible. Local voice recognition (but no extended interpretation) on mobile devices *has* been implemented before, on devices less powerful than the iphone.
No. It does not have any specific implementation on the iphone of the core functionality of the total system beyond the function of a terminal.
The access to siri, hosted somewhere else, is limited to *customers* who bought an iphone 4.
I can easily prove that it is not a feature of the phone: Disconnect from the net and try to use it. If it would be a feature of the phone, then the phone should implement it. And please: the fundamental functionality of voice recognitions does *not* depend on internet access.
What i find most fascinating abut siri is that it is advertised as a feature of the iphone 4 but in reality has nothing to do with it. transferring voice data has been around for a long time on mobile phones.
But you dont need an investment. This can make the difference between doing and financing a first few projects yourself, as you need these instead of investing a lot on money, which sits in the corner no matter if you need it or not.
I would certainly hope that we rule out *many* modelling approaches. This is in no way unusual.
What you call "Null Hyphothesis" is not a "Null Hyphothesis". A null Hyphothesis would be the Hyphothesis that the factors related to human civilization are unrelated to a change of climate.
This Hyphothesis is falsified on all levels. If you misunderstand this to be equivalent to "a big wave will come and wash the civization away" then i can't help you. No serious scientist would claim that.
Slashdot Mirror
this may compete for the worst articles ever featured on ./
a) most interestingly, the seriously competing offer was from WADS
b) Since USA are not liked very much in the region (and dont like the region very much) and everybody knows that export issues in the USA for weapons are always very political, it is a good choice not to depend on the spare parts.
c) It is a good example on the misconception of the population in USA on that weapons designed for the cold war of the war with USSR are anyhow more convincing in modern (asymmetric) conflicts than weapons not on the cutting edge of this race. Yes. The American military planes are good. But if you look at Afghanistan, even the western forces would need *more* aircrafts and not *higher advanced* aircrafts. And the same holds true for india
Now, the question is: will Apple, Samsung and Motorla fight long enough to allow for a comeback of Nokia on the smartphone market?
Disclaimer: i have worked for a group competing with dwave.
What dWave has, and they claim not much more, is a system which is stable enough to use thermal noise (their unproven claim: with a small addition by quantum tunnelling) to find the ground state of a Hamiltonian to construct. This solves some tasks, but by far not all.
What the rest of the QC community wants is a computer which can generate and manipulate entangled state superpositions, enabling to execute arbitrary operations on exponentially scaling (in the number of qubits) sets.
My prediction: The thing (dwave) has is a nice patent stack. Once other groups solve the important problems dwave will sue the fuck out of them or agree on a technology exchange.
In my (former researcher who left to industry) opinion/experience its not the editors who put the pressure, but the possibility that you ignored a work of somebody who is important enough to referee for Nature or Science. There are some components of these phenomena:
a) Maybe the work really is important, and you did not know it because it's too long ago. There is usually nothing wrong with a referee saying "hey that is similar to what [xyz]" did, even if they are on the list of authors on the reference in question.
b) some referees dont react positively to not getting cited and will shoot down any paper not referring to *their* theory for other reasons (i believe that happened to me once)
c) In the abstract (which is the part really read by the editors before the refereeing process) you compare your paper to the previous publications. Authors are under the impression that comparing your work to previous important papers makes a better impression. How far this is true i cant judge. I found the editor stage *before* the refereeing in Nature and Science the most intransparent thing I have experienced as an author. Unlike the refereeing process there is no way to appeal, there is not information on what the editors disliked so much to refuse directly. (There is the saying that once you had Nature/Science papers it gets more likely to pass this stage, and i have seen at least one example of a paper being passed to Nature which for sure would have been rejected by the editors had it come from a less important group in the field)
What is "sidestepping the gpl"? Sony says for some products GPLing is for some reason problematic (which may be even not due to their own decisions), so lets write a free version.
IMHO GPL should be enforced wherever it was intended to apply. If i invest time in something, i want that this happens under my conditions.
Left to change society before globalisation marginalises Japan.
did megaupload at any time guarantee a minimum availability by a contract because otherwise there is actually nothing to sue about.
which is not so bright. Especially taken into account that this money may be the pension savings for a lot of people. The self-dependence is the thing which prevents them from developing. They have their own market, just for themself, they have their own financial system and their own science system.
No pressing need for serious reforms, is there? And there is not much time left.
Then i wonder why in the group in Jp where i worked as a postdoc the major publications were done by the foreigners.
No, but after weird conspiracy theories about women, weird interviews, improperly handling cryptographic keys just to show off, after treating the other WL members in a king-servant relation (causing real harm), using WL publicity for his private legal costs and making contracts with the media who are more worthy of sony that of a organisation interested in the free exchange of information, what do you expect from JA?
i am scared that every idiot who obviously has not read any fundamental philosophy of science works and obviously has not done research declares his own opinion, untouched by having seen a lab from the inside, on how science works only to complain afterwards about his picture of science.
One of the repetitive aspects of this discussion is "causality", which seems, in the mind of the general population, a scientific principle. Let me remark that in the modern science we usually replace causality by the ability to create an underlying - possibly complex - model, the predictions of which depend on a parameter. That is the test which scientists would use such a model to determine causality, since it enables hopefully tests independent of the specific result.
Ahem. lets not forget that this was not an official statement by samsung, but an unknown inside source, which may be prone to one of the following effects:
a) overestimation of the own knowledge
b) intentional misinformation inside the company
c) making himself/herself more important to the journalist than he is
d) The samsung legal department changing their opinion on what "google requires" means for them (its not an easy question if you take the liability for the installed SW all around the world)
dont worry. i anyway thought this more of as an ironic comment than a request for advice..
i will continue not to use twitter.
honestly: the internet was not meant to be dominated by a few servers. If you now have this situation because you are lazy, then i cant help.
.com bubble is calling.
(disclaimer: I am currently working on renewable Energies, so there may be a bias)
They ask for more funding for analysing weather data. They explicitly say: "we want to understand it better, because we want to control it in a *reasonable* way and prepare for it *as it is needed*". What they say (and that is a point which should have been argued better, taken into account that they ask for more observations....) is: we have roughly 50 years more to change it.
What they don't discuss is that the investment cycles in Energy Technologies are *incredibly long*. There is no energy technology which was ramped up from its invention to its massive use in less than 50 years (lets exclude civil nuclear reactors, which were a side product of building boms).
So my opinion (as a physicist who is convinced that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a parameter of the system we should not meddle with too much and thinks that these scientist are affected by a bias to get more satellites) is: we wont change it rapidly on the short term anyway. Also there will be no big flood wave coming the next year. Instead of hyping electric/hybrid cars to be the salvation we should take the time (the next 20-30 years) and seriously develop the new (or old) technologies and combine them in the ideal way.
Thats exactly right. So if you tell somebody to look at a commercial featuring siri on the iphone4 he would be mistaken to believe that this processing happens on his iphone.
And to be clear: i dont think that voice recognition on mobile devices is impossible. Local voice recognition (but no extended interpretation) on mobile devices *has* been implemented before, on devices less powerful than the iphone.
No. It does not have any specific implementation on the iphone of the core functionality of the total system beyond the function of a terminal.
The access to siri, hosted somewhere else, is limited to *customers* who bought an iphone 4.
I can easily prove that it is not a feature of the phone: Disconnect from the net and try to use it. If it would be a feature of the phone, then the phone should implement it. And please: the fundamental functionality of voice recognitions does *not* depend on internet access.
What i find most fascinating abut siri is that it is advertised as a feature of the iphone 4 but in reality has nothing to do with it. transferring voice data has been around for a long time on mobile phones.
so i gather we just forget about any access control and everybody is root?
i think the risk is more associated with using services which dont have a clear, legal business model.
as i said: "catastrophic" is not a scientific category.
"Thus far, this null hypothesis is clearly true" says to me you dont understand that there is a difference between "true" and "not falsified".
But you dont need an investment. This can make the difference between doing and financing a first few projects yourself, as you need these instead of investing a lot on money, which sits in the corner no matter if you need it or not.
"or other products (in Rossis case) in the output"
is there anything wrong with your reading capability?
I would certainly hope that we rule out *many* modelling approaches. This is in no way unusual.
What you call "Null Hyphothesis" is not a "Null Hyphothesis". A null Hyphothesis would be the Hyphothesis that the factors related to human civilization are unrelated to a change of climate.
This Hyphothesis is falsified on all levels. If you misunderstand this to be equivalent to "a big wave will come and wash the civization away" then i can't help you. No serious scientist would claim that.