At about 380-400km, which is the altitude of the ISS (and therefore, the ceiling for space-shuttle)
Only under the ISS-only policy in the wake of Columbia. According to Wikipedia, the Shuttle's operational altitude is 185 to 1000km (100 to 520 nmi), and its maximum achieved altitude is 630km (340nmi), presumably on the missions to Hubble.
Most people don't like knowing about the insect content of their wine.
As in "Frass Canyon" Vineyards, depicted in the movie Sideways? ("Frass" is a term for insect excrement, and the winery is really Fess Parker, but still. They don't call it bug juice for nothing.)
Talking about machine intelligence is tricky in that we generally only consider *human* intellegence (which makes sense considering that's what we are).
When a human makes a mistake, it immediately pours massive processing power into either formulating arguments about why it's not a mistake or finding someone else to blame for it.
Machines tend not to do this.
"Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error." -HAL 9000
These factors combined would suggest a ~4.5-hour battery life, which stands to reason; if it were better than the old Powerbooks, Apple would be shouting it from the rooftops. Oddly, when adding the MacBook to cart on the Apple Store, an extra battery is not a BTO option, and the followup Accessories screen shows the Aluminum battery, not the MacBook one. They're going to have a lot of confused customers.
Re:Only with money in fractions
on
Rounding Algorithms
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, the "bias" came from your choice of data (and your unrealistic expectation that the average of a set of rounded values would equal the average of the unrounded set).
Such examples are as easy to construct as they are misleading. Suppose we instead take the values {0.2, 0.3, and 0.5}. Their average is 1/3, and if we round them ".5 up" we wind up with {0,0,1} with exactly the same average. On the other hand, if we round them with ".5 to even" we wind up with {0,0,0} with the average of zero and an "error" (by your metric) of 100%.
Your example proves my point. Which distribution is more arbitrary; "Arithmetically uniform," or the set "{0.2, 0.3, and 0.5}"?
To be sure, if the distribution is, for example, geometrically uniform (i.e., uniformly distributed exponents), then Benford's Law applies, and significantly more values in the range [0..10] (say) will have fractions less than 0.5. This effect decreases dramatically for large values, since the fractional component (which is what we care about) shifts to less and less significant bits. But If you find yourself rounding lots of very small values to integer, then your loss of precision will far exceed the error caused by your 0.5-rounding choice, and you should probably rethink what you're doing.
In typical real-life scenarios, it's logical to assume that your set of numbers will have a reasonably smooth distribution (arithmetically uniform or not), and also that most values will be considerably larger than the rounding granularity. (Dollar values in the $10-$100 range rounded to pennies, for example.) Any such distribution will approach arithmetic uniformity at the scale of the rounding granularity (pennies). Hence, the choice of an arithmetically uniform distribution between successive integers is NOT arbitrary, and accurately represents most real-life distributions. For such distributions, the 0.5->1 rounding convention introduces a small but measurable positive bias.
Why? Because contrary to what some people think, there is no systematic bias in always rounding up. There are exactly as many values that will be rounded down as will be rounded up if you always round exact halves up. I think the trap that people fall into is forgetting that x.000... rounds down (they think of it as somehow "not rounding").
This is incorrect.
For illustration, suppose we use a floating-point format with a 10-bit mantissa. For a fixed exponent (say 0), this can represent values from 1.0 to 1 1023/1024, in 1/1024 increments. The AVERAGE of these UNROUNDED values is 1 1023/2048, which is LESS THAN 1.5. However, if all these values are rounded (with 0.5 rounding up), the AVERAGE of the ROUNDED values will be EQUAL TO 1.5, an average increase of 1/2048. Thus, this type of rounding introduces a measurable positive bias into the arithmetic.
The idea, though, is that the nerve endings wouldn't be exposed to the polymer-encased capsaicin; only busting the polymer mini-capsules open, by cutting etc, would cause a situation where it would do damage.
From TFA:
"If a formulation containing capsaicin is swallowed whole, release of the irritant in the stomach and small intestine would not cause discomfort," Woolf maintains.
This seems to imply that some capsaicin does get released into the stomach, though he doesn't say how much. I still wouldn't want to be the guinea pig for this experiment.
For any patient with GERD or vomiting, capsaicin-laced painkillers would be contraindicated.
Sure, for the most part, but upchucking is not 100% predictable. Just wait until some not-so-bright individual takes one of these pills and then goes on a roller-coaster, then sues the pharmaceutical company for pain and suffering. (Or goes for a bumpy car ride, or eats tainted food, or listens to too much Barbra Streisand.) I haven't chundered in years, but I still don't relish the idea of filling up my insides with capsaicin. Unless there's a LOT of chips and guacamole to go with it.
A second approach is to mix in a chemical irritant like capsaicin, the main ingredient of hot chili peppers, said Dr. Woolf, who has a patent on the idea.
What about people with involuntary acid reflux, or vomiting? If the capsaicin is released in the stomach, this could have horrible consequences even for those who take the pill as intended. I think the opiate antagonist is a MUCH better idea.
I don't wholly subscribe to the idea that I'm just meat
You might enjoy this short story. The word "meat" connotes a level of homogeneity and simplicity that is completely unwarranted; meat is actually ridiculously complicated. That's why there's no meat on Mars, for instance.
They also stated that they doubted the numbers claimed as the largest pyramid they had heard of was composed of 280 or so cheerleaders and that a trillion is "like at least double that."
Are these the same cheerleaders who were reading the newspaper headline"TWO BRAZILIAN SOLDIERS KILLED"... and one of them leans over to the other and says, "How many is a brazilian?"
Even if aging is somehow conquered, this doesn't prevent trauma from being a cause of death.
Mod parent insightful. I recall reading a study which calculated that the mean human lifespan, if old age and disease were conquered, would be around 300 years, based on our current level of day-to-day risk. If we suddenly could expect to live 600 years in good health, society would change quite a bit to minimize our background risk (say, to adjust the 300-year value to 1500.) A 55 MPH speed limit on the freeway might start seeming like a good idea again!
My house is in a 500-year tsunami-inundation zone; this is an acceptable level of risk, presuming I have 40-50 years left to live, but if I knew I could live 500 more years, I might be inclined to move somewhere safer. It will be fascinating to see (personally, I hope!) what the social and economic impact of dramatically increased lifespan will prove to be.
Slashdot Mirror
At about 380-400km, which is the altitude of the ISS (and therefore, the ceiling for space-shuttle)
Only under the ISS-only policy in the wake of Columbia. According to Wikipedia, the Shuttle's operational altitude is 185 to 1000km (100 to 520 nmi), and its maximum achieved altitude is 630km (340nmi), presumably on the missions to Hubble.
it has yet to pass the most crucial test - how to account for the afterglow of the big bang.
I think a theory that explains the foreplay of the big bang would be even more insightful.
Hey, this broth isn't tasty enough! Better bring in a few more cooks...
Whetstone Soup.
I think the iPod should have been called the MacNugget.
Most people don't like knowing about the insect content of their wine.
As in "Frass Canyon" Vineyards, depicted in the movie Sideways? ("Frass" is a term for insect excrement, and the winery is really Fess Parker, but still. They don't call it bug juice for nothing.)
As electricity is usen only when you turn pages, it will last as long as it takes you to flip 7500 pages.
So much for my brilliant idea of an e-Ink Flip Book.
Talking about machine intelligence is tricky in that we generally only consider *human* intellegence (which makes sense considering that's what we are).
Obligatory reference: They're Made Out of Meat!
When a human makes a mistake, it immediately pours massive processing power into either formulating arguments about why it's not a mistake or finding someone else to blame for it.
Machines tend not to do this.
"Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error." -HAL 9000
So when's the mission to Goofy?
"They are well over 100 mexapixel in resolution..."
Does that mean each pixel can hold 100 mexicans worth of optical information?
That's nothing. My camera has a brazilian pixels.
...the earth's magnetic poles don't flip, while you're on it.
Any word on the expected battery life of the MacBook Pro? I couldn't find any info anywhere, so I'm expecting it to be adequate at best.
We can make an educated guess by comparing the specs for the old PowerBook adapter (65W), to the new MacBook adapter (85W). Also, the the old PowerBook battery is 50Wh, while the new MacBook battery is 60Wh.
These factors combined would suggest a ~4.5-hour battery life, which stands to reason; if it were better than the old Powerbooks, Apple would be shouting it from the rooftops. Oddly, when adding the MacBook to cart on the Apple Store, an extra battery is not a BTO option, and the followup Accessories screen shows the Aluminum battery, not the MacBook one. They're going to have a lot of confused customers.
No, the "bias" came from your choice of data (and your unrealistic expectation that the average of a set of rounded values would equal the average of the unrounded set). Such examples are as easy to construct as they are misleading. Suppose we instead take the values {0.2, 0.3, and 0.5}. Their average is 1/3, and if we round them ".5 up" we wind up with {0,0,1} with exactly the same average. On the other hand, if we round them with ".5 to even" we wind up with {0,0,0} with the average of zero and an "error" (by your metric) of 100%.
Your example proves my point. Which distribution is more arbitrary; "Arithmetically uniform," or the set "{0.2, 0.3, and 0.5}"?
To be sure, if the distribution is, for example, geometrically uniform (i.e., uniformly distributed exponents), then Benford's Law applies, and significantly more values in the range [0..10] (say) will have fractions less than 0.5. This effect decreases dramatically for large values, since the fractional component (which is what we care about) shifts to less and less significant bits. But If you find yourself rounding lots of very small values to integer, then your loss of precision will far exceed the error caused by your 0.5-rounding choice, and you should probably rethink what you're doing.
In typical real-life scenarios, it's logical to assume that your set of numbers will have a reasonably smooth distribution (arithmetically uniform or not), and also that most values will be considerably larger than the rounding granularity. (Dollar values in the $10-$100 range rounded to pennies, for example.) Any such distribution will approach arithmetic uniformity at the scale of the rounding granularity (pennies). Hence, the choice of an arithmetically uniform distribution between successive integers is NOT arbitrary, and accurately represents most real-life distributions. For such distributions, the 0.5->1 rounding convention introduces a small but measurable positive bias.
Why? Because contrary to what some people think, there is no systematic bias in always rounding up. There are exactly as many values that will be rounded down as will be rounded up if you always round exact halves up. I think the trap that people fall into is forgetting that x.000... rounds down (they think of it as somehow "not rounding").
This is incorrect.
For illustration, suppose we use a floating-point format with a 10-bit mantissa. For a fixed exponent (say 0), this can represent values from 1.0 to 1 1023/1024, in 1/1024 increments. The AVERAGE of these UNROUNDED values is 1 1023/2048, which is LESS THAN 1.5. However, if all these values are rounded (with 0.5 rounding up), the AVERAGE of the ROUNDED values will be EQUAL TO 1.5, an average increase of 1/2048. Thus, this type of rounding introduces a measurable positive bias into the arithmetic.
At least this Slashdot poster appears to be well-rounded.
Actually, and sadly, the Moon gets farther from Earth when it losts its orbital energy.
Don't verb adjectives. Verbing weirds adjectives.
This can be had for you and your loved ones for the price of... $599, $100 of which is donated directly to the beer volcano.
What about the stripper factory?
From TFA: This seems to imply that some capsaicin does get released into the stomach, though he doesn't say how much. I still wouldn't want to be the guinea pig for this experiment.
For any patient with GERD or vomiting, capsaicin-laced painkillers would be contraindicated.
Sure, for the most part, but upchucking is not 100% predictable. Just wait until some not-so-bright individual takes one of these pills and then goes on a roller-coaster, then sues the pharmaceutical company for pain and suffering. (Or goes for a bumpy car ride, or eats tainted food, or listens to too much Barbra Streisand.) I haven't chundered in years, but I still don't relish the idea of filling up my insides with capsaicin. Unless there's a LOT of chips and guacamole to go with it.
A second approach is to mix in a chemical irritant like capsaicin, the main ingredient of hot chili peppers, said Dr. Woolf, who has a patent on the idea.
What about people with involuntary acid reflux, or vomiting? If the capsaicin is released in the stomach, this could have horrible consequences even for those who take the pill as intended. I think the opiate antagonist is a MUCH better idea.
I make mine with carrots and vegetable stock ;)
Yep, a Souperfluid.
I don't wholly subscribe to the idea that I'm just meat
You might enjoy this short story. The word "meat" connotes a level of homogeneity and simplicity that is completely unwarranted; meat is actually ridiculously complicated. That's why there's no meat on Mars, for instance.
They also stated that they doubted the numbers claimed as the largest pyramid they had heard of was composed of 280 or so cheerleaders and that a trillion is "like at least double that."
Are these the same cheerleaders who were reading the newspaper headline"TWO BRAZILIAN SOLDIERS KILLED"... and one of them leans over to the other and says, "How many is a brazilian?"
In this age of data mining, persons afflicted with a seizure at the supermarket will quickly receive a coupon for a free shake from Baskin Robbins.
Great, so they get an ice-cream headache on top of it too...
Even if aging is somehow conquered, this doesn't prevent trauma from being a cause of death.
Mod parent insightful. I recall reading a study which calculated that the mean human lifespan, if old age and disease were conquered, would be around 300 years, based on our current level of day-to-day risk. If we suddenly could expect to live 600 years in good health, society would change quite a bit to minimize our background risk (say, to adjust the 300-year value to 1500.) A 55 MPH speed limit on the freeway might start seeming like a good idea again!
My house is in a 500-year tsunami-inundation zone; this is an acceptable level of risk, presuming I have 40-50 years left to live, but if I knew I could live 500 more years, I might be inclined to move somewhere safer. It will be fascinating to see (personally, I hope!) what the social and economic impact of dramatically increased lifespan will prove to be.