Couldn't they even keep backwards compatibility via virtualization? They can have all the new apps run natively, and run the old ones on a virtual OS. It would give new apps a nice degree of isolation from some of the old badness.
Technically, didn't Eternal September end in February 2005?
Anyway, GP might be a joke, but if we required licenses to operate technology, chances are none of us would have ever learned how to use it. We were all beginners at one point.
From what I've heard, jury selection typically biases against people with scientific or statistical training (or anyone who knows about jury nullification)... but that's all from secondhand sources, so take it with a grain of salt; the only time I was called for jury duty myself, it was in the wrong county and I couldn't serve even if I wanted to.
I was expecting more designed nano-scale guitars, but seeing the article was actually a very pleasant surprise. I wasn't expecting to see sunrises, flowers, or forests come out of those images, even if they were colorized.
Firefox 3 accentuated the distinction between self-signed and CA certificates in the browser quite a bit. Now you get this "error page" that forces you to add an exception for self-signed certs before it will let you view the page. I guess they did it to combat certain types of phishing.
I agree. Hearing all of the things that they want to put in it now, I'm not really sure that a lot of them belong in HTML anyway. It seems like we're trying to stuff everything that was hot over the last 10 years into a language that was meant to be used purely for website markup.
It's expensive because we're in the metropolitan areas of both NYC and Philadelphia. There are some cheaper parts of NJ, but those tend to be rural areas that are geographically further from the cities.
I think the benefits to science itself outweigh the personal objections in this case. Attribution is important, but we shouldn't allow it to interfere with progress.
The quicker others find out C->D, the quicker they can find out D->E->F and get on to F->G. In other words, it would make science move faster.
That might be the death of the traditional scientific paper... but I think it would lead to a more effective system. What we would instead have are communities where individual authors post their ideas and experiments - essentially fragments of what currently constitutes an academic paper - and other people fill in other areas and draw connections. In a way, it would be much more direct: post your idea, post your experiments, post your results, and don't worry about having to write on topics you are not familiar with to flesh out the background/intro/conclusions. Perhaps, with the diminished need to protect our professional reputations, we would even begin writing in language that laypeople could understand. (It always amazes me that some scientists do not understand why laypeople can't read their papers and yet continue to couch them in bombastic language).
The experimental process itself is also a quite valuable detail that is almost always excluded from published papers. One scientist might have many failed attempts that can nevertheless provide insight to others - perhaps even moreso than the final successful approach.
None of it goes to the researchers, at least in any of the conferences and journals I've submitted to. I agree; it is high time to take the parasites out of the loop.
The agenda of a research lab typically revolves around its director(s). Everyone will be working on their own individual projects (all of which have been detailed in the grant the faculty member was awarded 5 years previously), but you can always approach someone who is working on something similar to you for help, should you require it. Most will probably be glad to help you. The environment is less formal and more close-knit than that in the corporate world.
Most time spent in the lab is rather dull. The exception to this is the month of January, because that's when conference paper deadlines tend to occur. Think of it as a punctuated equilibrium. If you know that the professor wants to submit a paper on one of the projects you're working on, start preparing a paper early, before he even mentions the conference, because if he's anything like mine, he won't mention the conference until two days before the deadline.
Don't expect fair apportion of credit, adherence to some glowing paragon of scientific method, or even basic integrity to abound. Most beliefs that outsiders hold about academia are false. In general, I'd advise going into the process with a healthy dose of cynicism.
What you are saying is we won't get AI until 2030 because computers won't be fast enough to brute force it until then (and that's only if you believe Kurzweil). We can do it earlier if we could come up with some clever ideas, but I don't have any doubts that the first AI is going to be an exact neuron-for-neuron reconstruction of the brain.
True, but there are lots of holes you can end up with that a formal education will fill in. I've been coding since 8 and I still found my undergraduate education useful for that.
Holt is one of the few congressmen who have actually earned my respect - and he's one of the few I'd actually expect to sponsor such a bill without any traps.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually an improvement over their current model of "We have a cap, but we won't tell you what it is".
Like a previous poster said, though, if they promise unlimited, they have to deliver unlimited. They should indeed be sued for not doing so.
Couldn't they even keep backwards compatibility via virtualization? They can have all the new apps run natively, and run the old ones on a virtual OS. It would give new apps a nice degree of isolation from some of the old badness.
I'm typing this message on a $200 Logitech DiNovo Edge.
That's what select() is for.
Yeah, but then you have to live in Ohio :)
How will everyone know when the block is reclaimed? You'll end up with an entire /16 that no one can use because everyone is still blocking it.
I think the point is that you may not accept evidence based on the same criteria the court uses.
:)
Also, it's a musical joke - the interval between the notes C# and F# is a perfect fourth
Technically, didn't Eternal September end in February 2005?
Anyway, GP might be a joke, but if we required licenses to operate technology, chances are none of us would have ever learned how to use it. We were all beginners at one point.
From what I've heard, jury selection typically biases against people with scientific or statistical training (or anyone who knows about jury nullification)... but that's all from secondhand sources, so take it with a grain of salt; the only time I was called for jury duty myself, it was in the wrong county and I couldn't serve even if I wanted to.
I was expecting more designed nano-scale guitars, but seeing the article was actually a very pleasant surprise. I wasn't expecting to see sunrises, flowers, or forests come out of those images, even if they were colorized.
Firefox 3 accentuated the distinction between self-signed and CA certificates in the browser quite a bit. Now you get this "error page" that forces you to add an exception for self-signed certs before it will let you view the page. I guess they did it to combat certain types of phishing.
I agree. Hearing all of the things that they want to put in it now, I'm not really sure that a lot of them belong in HTML anyway. It seems like we're trying to stuff everything that was hot over the last 10 years into a language that was meant to be used purely for website markup.
In Soviet North Korea, dogs clone YOU?
It's expensive because we're in the metropolitan areas of both NYC and Philadelphia. There are some cheaper parts of NJ, but those tend to be rural areas that are geographically further from the cities.
I find it a great place to live, myself.
I think the benefits to science itself outweigh the personal objections in this case. Attribution is important, but we shouldn't allow it to interfere with progress.
The quicker others find out C->D, the quicker they can find out D->E->F and get on to F->G. In other words, it would make science move faster.
That might be the death of the traditional scientific paper... but I think it would lead to a more effective system. What we would instead have are communities where individual authors post their ideas and experiments - essentially fragments of what currently constitutes an academic paper - and other people fill in other areas and draw connections. In a way, it would be much more direct: post your idea, post your experiments, post your results, and don't worry about having to write on topics you are not familiar with to flesh out the background/intro/conclusions. Perhaps, with the diminished need to protect our professional reputations, we would even begin writing in language that laypeople could understand. (It always amazes me that some scientists do not understand why laypeople can't read their papers and yet continue to couch them in bombastic language).
The experimental process itself is also a quite valuable detail that is almost always excluded from published papers. One scientist might have many failed attempts that can nevertheless provide insight to others - perhaps even moreso than the final successful approach.
None of it goes to the researchers, at least in any of the conferences and journals I've submitted to. I agree; it is high time to take the parasites out of the loop.
First of all, realize you're starting out at the bottom of the food chain, which means you're probably going to get all of the grunt work that no one else wants to do.
The agenda of a research lab typically revolves around its director(s). Everyone will be working on their own individual projects (all of which have been detailed in the grant the faculty member was awarded 5 years previously), but you can always approach someone who is working on something similar to you for help, should you require it. Most will probably be glad to help you. The environment is less formal and more close-knit than that in the corporate world.
Most time spent in the lab is rather dull. The exception to this is the month of January, because that's when conference paper deadlines tend to occur. Think of it as a punctuated equilibrium. If you know that the professor wants to submit a paper on one of the projects you're working on, start preparing a paper early, before he even mentions the conference, because if he's anything like mine, he won't mention the conference until two days before the deadline.
Don't expect fair apportion of credit, adherence to some glowing paragon of scientific method, or even basic integrity to abound. Most beliefs that outsiders hold about academia are false. In general, I'd advise going into the process with a healthy dose of cynicism.
Oh, and everything in PhD Comics is true.
What you are saying is we won't get AI until 2030 because computers won't be fast enough to brute force it until then (and that's only if you believe Kurzweil). We can do it earlier if we could come up with some clever ideas, but I don't have any doubts that the first AI is going to be an exact neuron-for-neuron reconstruction of the brain.
That page also has a poor explanation. My guess is that the company isn't all that great at clearly explaining what their products do.
They're probably going to give the winners jobs. Spending 24 hours straight coding in a coffin is good preparation :)
Wow, what a great deal! Quick, I need to buy this thing before the sale ends!
He's right about the MS adding much more value, though. And it can take as little as one year to get, too.
True, but there are lots of holes you can end up with that a formal education will fill in. I've been coding since 8 and I still found my undergraduate education useful for that.
Holt is one of the few congressmen who have actually earned my respect - and he's one of the few I'd actually expect to sponsor such a bill without any traps.