1. - We must preserve these lands for future generations (of humans).
2. - Humans aren't allowed in these lands.
Your two assumptions generally are not held simultaneously by the same person, in my experience.
Usually, if someone holds (1) with the "(of humans)" restriction, they only want to regulate the usage of managed lands, not disallow usage alltogether.
If someone holds (2) in the form you presented, they drop the "(of humans)" restriction off of (1).
*fart* When it comes to media impartiality, you've got to choose from the lesser of many evils. If the Christian Science Monitor had a radio and television network, I'd recommend them...
Even if they waive all future upgrade license fees, they still have support contracts, MSDN and other subscriptions to services many large organizations will rerquire.
Golly. Sounds familiar. Isn't this the...*wait for it*...open source business model?
Banks employ some of the simplest mathematics that exist.
But investment banks are in the business of predicting stuff. Think statistics. And at the bleeding edge, neural networks, data mining, evolutionary algorithms, etc.
Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you don't have to be a calc guru to be good at CS. You could always get a CS BA, a bachelors in something else with a CS minor, or a BA in something goofy like psychology and get a masters in CS. (Like I did. Only one semester of calc.:P )
Because I am not really a much at calculus, which is necessary if you want to be really good at Computer Science.
Woah, there! I'm not sure what computer science you're talking about here. Calculus? Try logic, algebra, discrete mathematics, and number theory. Trust me, you don't need to know a lick of calc to excel in CS.
To me, this has far more wide-ranging implications also than just the death of cartoons...we're talking about freedom of expression as a whole.
Yeah! Like, if you try to have any morally relativistic themes, you get stomped on by moral absolutists like you.:)
Re:I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That makes the assumption that the anti-evolutionists are logical people.
Very true. And, in the case of using genetic algorithms as a point of evidence in an argument, this assumption works against you. For many people computers are a black box. If you say, "I have a computer program that models mysterious process X" it's just replacing something mysterious with something incomprehensible.
And, before you do that, you have to assume that arguing is a productive activity in the first place. With many evolution deniers, it is not. But since they've wandered into my cave (the realm of logical, rational thought) I find it's my duty to eat them alive.:)
Re:I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
How does starting with - 'a few thousand lines of c', - a well-defined 'parameter space', - 'filtering the bad missteps'
compare with the real world, where we started with absolutely nothing?
How about starting with - 'the entire universe', - 'all possible paramater spaces' (see above) - 'filtering the bad missteps'
We didn't start with "absolutely nothing" as you assert. We started with absolutely everything.
Not my reaction, his reaction. He actually asked me, "d00d, why aren't I sneezing?"
Empirical criticism, lesson 1: Ask (gather data) before you assume you know the situation. I provided insufficient information, but you filled in the gaps with your criticism.
See, this is my problem with kneejerk skepticism. You're assuming I have reduced powers of observation / self awareness.
Reign in your own assumptions before you criticise.
I agree. I installed two ionic breeze filters in one room of my house. (The one I spend the most time in.)
One day a good friend came over. He doesn't come over frequently because my place is rather dusty and his allergies don't like it. In the room with the ionic breeze units he didn't sneeze and had no allergy problems. In the other rooms he was his same old sneezy self.
He had no clue the ionic breezes were there. They weren't even visible.
So, those who disregard other's firsthand observations can stuff it.:)
Re:Small form factor roundup on Ars today
on
Mini-Box M-100
·
· Score: 1
As long as you can set the FSB multiplier on the motherboard, you can do it. I've set mine to 166Mhz FSB with a 12.5/13x multiplier. (ABIT IT7 motherboard) I've heard of people setting the FSB higher, up to 180, with the right RAM. (I'm only using PC2700, though, so 166 was about the best I could do. Any higher than that was unstable...)
Re:Small form factor roundup on Ars today
on
Mini-Box M-100
·
· Score: 1
Ditch the 2800+ and get a 2500+. The price just nosedived to about $125 and I'm overclocking mine to 2080Mhz, as fast as the 2800+.:)
Load the text of all stories into the search system.
Use the text of a potential story as a query into the system. Give additional weight to recent stories. Make this weighting function exponential, (1 - recency)^2, or something.
If a story passes a certain threshold weight, you probably have a dupe.
Slashdot Mirror
imagine having to rewrite all of their code and promotional material to elimate the word "Unix"!
Yes! Imagine the inconvenience of actually learning awk!
1. - We must preserve these lands for future generations (of humans).
2. - Humans aren't allowed in these lands.
Your two assumptions generally are not held simultaneously by the same person, in my experience.
Usually, if someone holds (1) with the "(of humans)" restriction, they only want to regulate the usage of managed lands, not disallow usage alltogether.
If someone holds (2) in the form you presented, they drop the "(of humans)" restriction off of (1).
This resolves the dichotomy.
That should be modded +1 funny.
*fart* When it comes to media impartiality, you've got to choose from the lesser of many evils. If the Christian Science Monitor had a radio and television network, I'd recommend them...
After Monday, the only impartial media out there will be public radio and television.
Support it, or it will die.
Find your local radio or television station and join up.
This is really a revival of a program that Clinton zeroed out the funding for in 1992
:)
Wow! That must have been a neat trick, considering he became president in 1993.
With all dew respect...
Dew respect? Dewd, that typo makes yoo look all wet!
Even if they waive all future upgrade license fees, they still have support contracts, MSDN and other subscriptions to services many large organizations will rerquire.
Golly. Sounds familiar. Isn't this the...*wait for it*...open source business model?
Banks employ some of the simplest mathematics that exist.
But investment banks are in the business of predicting stuff. Think statistics. And at the bleeding edge, neural networks, data mining, evolutionary algorithms, etc.
Sigh Again...there are alternatives. That program isn't the only one out there. There are other ways to get a CS education.
Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you don't have to be a calc guru to be good at CS. You could always get a CS BA, a bachelors in something else with a CS minor, or a BA in something goofy like psychology and get a masters in CS. (Like I did. Only one semester of calc. :P )
Because I am not really a much at calculus, which is necessary if you want to be really good at Computer Science.
Woah, there! I'm not sure what computer science you're talking about here. Calculus? Try logic, algebra, discrete mathematics, and number theory. Trust me, you don't need to know a lick of calc to excel in CS.
Yes, and hopefully they'll follow some sane packaging standards like these found here
To me, this has far more wide-ranging implications also than just the death of cartoons...we're talking about freedom of expression as a whole.
:)
Yeah! Like, if you try to have any morally relativistic themes, you get stomped on by moral absolutists like you.
That makes the assumption that the anti-evolutionists are logical people.
:)
Very true. And, in the case of using genetic algorithms as a point of evidence in an argument, this assumption works against you. For many people computers are a black box. If you say, "I have a computer program that models mysterious process X" it's just replacing something mysterious with something incomprehensible.
And, before you do that, you have to assume that arguing is a productive activity in the first place. With many evolution deniers, it is not. But since they've wandered into my cave (the realm of logical, rational thought) I find it's my duty to eat them alive.
How does starting with
- 'a few thousand lines of c',
- a well-defined 'parameter space',
- 'filtering the bad missteps'
compare with the real world, where we started with absolutely nothing?
How about starting with
- 'the entire universe',
- 'all possible paramater spaces' (see above)
- 'filtering the bad missteps'
We didn't start with "absolutely nothing" as you assert. We started with absolutely everything.
Hot shit, I've been trolled.
I have truly arrived.
You make me weep.
Methinks I'm having a chocolate covered manole cover moment.
Wish I could do that with all the little Madonnas who are having a karaoke competition in my college dorm tonight.
If I were still in college, I'd do something entirely different with them little Madonnas.
Replace that with THE ENTIRE FUCKING INTERNET and the sentence is still true!!
My god, the internet IS A FRACTAL!
Not my reaction, his reaction. He actually asked me, "d00d, why aren't I sneezing?"
Empirical criticism, lesson 1: Ask (gather data) before you assume you know the situation. I provided insufficient information, but you filled in the gaps with your criticism.
See, this is my problem with kneejerk skepticism. You're assuming I have reduced powers of observation / self awareness.
Reign in your own assumptions before you criticise.
I agree. I installed two ionic breeze filters in one room of my house. (The one I spend the most time in.)
:)
One day a good friend came over. He doesn't come over frequently because my place is rather dusty and his allergies don't like it. In the room with the ionic breeze units he didn't sneeze and had no allergy problems. In the other rooms he was his same old sneezy self.
He had no clue the ionic breezes were there. They weren't even visible.
So, those who disregard other's firsthand observations can stuff it.
As long as you can set the FSB multiplier on the motherboard, you can do it. I've set mine to 166Mhz FSB with a 12.5/13x multiplier. (ABIT IT7 motherboard) I've heard of people setting the FSB higher, up to 180, with the right RAM. (I'm only using PC2700, though, so 166 was about the best I could do. Any higher than that was unstable...)
Ditch the 2800+ and get a 2500+. The price just nosedived to about $125 and I'm overclocking mine to 2080Mhz, as fast as the 2800+. :)
is easier...
Here's how you do it.
Get a text search package.
Load the text of all stories into the search system.
Use the text of a potential story as a query into the system. Give additional weight to recent stories. Make this weighting function exponential, (1 - recency)^2, or something.
If a story passes a certain threshold weight, you probably have a dupe.
Easy.